JUDGMENT : Z.K. Saiyed, J. The complainant has preferred this appeal under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 15.9.2014 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.171 of 2010. The said case was registered against the present respondent No.1 original accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. The case of the complainant was that the appellant complainant lent the money in installments amounting to Rs.1 Lac to the respondent accused on account of his personal financial need. After some time, the appellant started to demand the money from the respondent and therefore, the respondent accused issued a cheque of Rs.1 Lac drawn on Central Bank of India being No. 699518 dated 8.12.2009, which was returned back to the appellant by bank on 9.12.2009 with an endorsement of "payment stopped by the drawer". Thereafter, on several occasions, the appellant made demand, but the respondent did not pay the same. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 accused informed the appellant to deposit the check on 11.1.2010, which was also returned back with the endorsement of the bank that "today’s opening balance is insufficient". Thereafter, the appellant issued legal notice to the accused, but same was not responded nor paid any amount by the accused. Thereafter, the appellant after serving demand notice as required under the Act, filed criminal complaint under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the trial Court. 3. It appears that on 15.9.2014, learned trial Judge dismissed the case of the appellant as he was not present on that day. Learned trial Judge also observed in his order that the complainant was given sufficient time by adjourning the matter on six times to produce evidence and on 22.8.2014 and though the learned advocate for the complainant assured for securing the presence of the complainant on next date by imposing costs of Rs.200/-, the complainant did not remain present before the trial Court and therefore, the trial Court acquitted the accused by dismissing the case of the complainant. Against the said order, present Appeal is preferred by the appellant original complainant. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Against the said order, present Appeal is preferred by the appellant original complainant. 4. Learned advocate Ms. Tanuja Kachchi appearing for the appellant, submitted that the appellant complainant did not know the date fixed by the trial Court and learned advocate appearing on his behalf also did not inform him and therefore, the complainant could not remain present before the Court. She also submitted that in view of the aforesaid position, the matter is required to be remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration in the interest of justice, otherwise, the appellant shall have to face financial hardship. She submitted that the complaint is required to be restored, as there is no fault on the part of the complainant, but due to the mistake on the part of the advocate, the complainant did not remain present before the trial Court. In support of her version, the learned advocate relied upon the case of Harisinh Bhagwantsinh Sarvaiya v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in 2013(3) GLR 2723 , wherein this Court has restored the complaint. 5. Heard learned advocate Ms. Shukla for the respondent. She supported the impugned order and submitted that the complainant failed to remain present before the trial Court on several occasions and therefore the matter was dismissed for default. She prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the order impugned passed by the trial Court. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the papers. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the amount involved in the present case as well as decision cited by the learned advocate for the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that if the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for a fresh consideration, it would meet with the ends of justice. Learned advocate Ms. Kachchi is ready to deposit the costs, if the matter is remanded back to the trial Court and decide afresh within stipulated time. The appellant shall produce receipt of the costs before the concerned trial Court. 7. For the foregoing observation, present Appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.5000/- towards the costs before the Registry of this Court and the respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdrawn the said amount. The appellant shall produce receipt of the costs before the concerned trial Court. 7. For the foregoing observation, present Appeal is allowed. The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.5000/- towards the costs before the Registry of this Court and the respondent No.1 is at liberty to withdrawn the said amount. The judgment and order dated 15.9.2014 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Negotiable Instruments Act Court, Ahmedabad, in Criminal Case No.171 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court concerned with a direction to decide the said Criminal Case No.171 of 2010 afresh, in accordance with law and on its merits, after affording full opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Upon production of receipt of costs, the Court concerned is directed to decide the said case afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of five months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Record and Proceedings, if received, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Appeal Allowed.