JUDGMENT : M.D. Shah, J. The appellant - original complainant has filed this appeal for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.5059 of 1995. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under: 2.1 The Apex Petrochemicals Limited - respondent No.2 - herein had purchased from the complainant appellant herein 81,150 kgs of Iso Octanol amounting to Rs. 50,30,200/-. Against this the accused company had issued seven account payee cheques in favour of complainant. However the said cheques were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Thereafter the complainant had issued a legal notice to the accused company on 19.10.1995 regarding the dishonour of the said cheques by registered post. The said notice dated 19.10.1995 wad duly served to the accused company on 21.10.1995. However, the accused company has failed to pay the amount in question and the accused company has neither replied to the said notice nor complied with the requirements of the said notice, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 and 141 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act. Thereafter the complainant had filed a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baroda against the accused-company. The learned trial court vide order dated 8.3.2001 has dismissed the said complaint for want of prosecution and thereby acquitted the accused. Hence this appeal. 3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Murli Devnani for the appellant, learned APP Mr.L.R.Pujari for the respondent No.1-State and learned advocate Mr.Ashish Dagli for the respondent No.2. 4. It is submitted that the present respondent No.2-accused company had preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No.13055 of 2007 against the appellant company before this Court whereby this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.) on 1.11.2007 has passed the following order. "At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere with the trial. Whether there was a service of notice on the petitioner on 19.10.1995 or whether there was service of the notice for the first time on 21.10.1995 is the matter to be examined during the course of trial. At this stage, where the trial is midway, I do not find it proper to interfere and hazard a conclusion on the basis of oral evidence, which may have been recorded. Secondly, the complaint was filed in 1995, the petitioner was served with the process of the Court proceeding many years back. At this stage, where the trial is midway, I do not find it proper to interfere and hazard a conclusion on the basis of oral evidence, which may have been recorded. Secondly, the complaint was filed in 1995, the petitioner was served with the process of the Court proceeding many years back. He also participated in the trial. On these grounds, I do not see any scope for quashing the pending complaint. However, if the petitioner is correct in his assertion that the complainant is delaying the proceedings, it is expected that the learned Magistrate shall take suitable steps to prevent hardship to the petitioner and miscarriage of justice and shall endeavour to complete the trial preferably within four months from the receipt of a copy of this order subject to the cooperation by the petitioner. With these observations, the petition is dismissed." 5. In spite of the above-referred order passed by this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.), the trial court has not commenced the trial though the chief-examination of the complainant and the evidence was tendered way back in the year 2005, and thereupon as per the Rojkam, number of times the matter was adjourned for one or other reason. Thereafter the trial court has adjourned the matter on 23.12.2010 for recording of the evidence, but as the trial court was busy with other work and the court time was over, the matter was adjourned to 17.1.2011. Thereafter on 17.1.2011 the complainant and the respective parties are present but as the trial court was busy with another matter, the matter could not proceed further and the matter was adjourned to 8.3.2011. Thereafter on 8.3.2011 the complainant or his learned advocate could not remain present and as the matter is very old, the complaint was dismissed by the trial court which shows that the complainant was not present on 17.1.2011. 6. Thereafter on 8.3.2011 the complainant or his learned advocate could not remain present and as the matter is very old, the complaint was dismissed by the trial court which shows that the complainant was not present on 17.1.2011. 6. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court (Coram: S.K.Keshote, J.) in the case of Ratanlal Gulabchand Gupta vs. Sahara Gruh Udyog Bhandar and others decided in Special Criminal Application No.527 of 1999 decided on 20.2.2001, more particularly head-note (A) which reads under: "Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (II of 1974) - Section 256 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881) - Section 138 - Complaint for offence under Section 138 dismissed on the ground of absence of complainant even though Advocate had been engaged - Complainant should not be penalised for negligence of Advocate - In a case of this nature, presence of complainant would not be necessary on every date - Matter restored." 7. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Dagli for the respondent No.2-accused that the trial court has granted exemption to the accused from remaining present as undertaking was given by the accused before the trial court that in his absence if the case is conducted, he has no objection. It is also submitted by learned advocate Mr.Dagli that as and when required, the accused will remain present before the trial court. It is submitted by learned advocates for both the parties that the complainant as well as the accused will remain present before the trial court and will also give full cooperation for conducting the matter and they will not ask any unnecessary adjournments. 8. This Court has gone through the averments made in this appeal as well as Rojkam of the case and the impugned order passed by the trial court. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the decision relied on by the learned advocate for the appellant in the case of Ratanlal Gulabchand Gupta (supra), the complainant should not be penalised for negligence of advocate. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, if some suitable cost will be imposed to the complainant, the same will meet with the ends of justice. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, if some suitable cost will be imposed to the complainant, the same will meet with the ends of justice. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8.3.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara in Criminal Case No.5059 of 1995 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is directed to pay cost Rs. 5,000/- to the respondent No.2-accused. The trial court is directed to give priority and conduct the matter by keeping on day to day basis as the matter is of the year 1994, and decide the same in accordance with law. Registry is directed to send back Record & Proceedings to the trial court forthwith. Appeal allowed.