JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. The matter is fixed for hearing today. Perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant, as the learned counsel for the respondent is not present. 2. The main grouse of the appellant is that his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable of Instrument Act was dismissed in default by the learned trial Court on 25.8.2006, consequently acquitted, when the case was fixed for defence evidence. It is contended in para-3 of the appeal that neither the complainant or his counsel nor the accused or his counsel have put in appearance on 25.8.2006 due to bonafide reason as the counsel for the parties inadvertently noted the date as 25.10.2006 instead of 25.8.2006. Later, complainant came to know that the matter had already been dismissed in default on 25.8.2006 by the learned trial Court. 3. On having examined the contention and also the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as “the Code”, I find that the absence of the complainant was not necessary on the day when the case was fixed for DWs. 4. As a matter of fact, the court must consider in a summons case, whether the personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned, the court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant, on that day was quite unnecessary, then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the powers, envisaged under Section 256 of the Code, particularly when the steps to summon the DWs were not taken and even DWs were not present on 25.8.2006. 5. The discretion in the aforesaid section has to be exercised fairly and judiciously without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice, which should be spelt out from the order passed by the Court, but in the instant case, no such reason was assigned by the learned trial Court, which is wrong and incorrect, as such, the impugned order dated 25.8.2006 is indefensible and is accordingly set-aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the learned trial court with a direction to register it against the original number. 6. The parties are hereby directed to be present before the learned trial court on 04.4.2013 at 10 a.m. The learned trial Court shall give an opportunity to the respondent-accused to lead his evidence in defence, if any and decide the case, in accordance with law expeditiously. Records of the Court below be returned forthwith. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. The matter stands disposed of.