JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: (Oral) - Leave to appeal is granted. CRM stands disposed of. Main case 1. Undisputably, appellant-complainant preferred a complaint under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, ‘Act’) as amended upto date, in which all the respondents were summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act. The complaint was fixed for securing the presence of respondents and arrest warrants were being issued for that purpose. On September 02, 2009, appellantcomplainant could not appear in the Court and after waiting for sometime, complaint was dismissed in default for non-appearance of the appellant-complainant. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that in fact, appellant could not appear before the ld. trial court on September 02, 2009 as his counsel noted down the date in his record as September 21, 2009 and when the appellant-complainant accompanied by his counsel, enquired about the complaint while visiting the Court on September 21, 2009, they came to know that the complaint has been dismissed in default for his non-appearance. Absence of the appellant on September 02, 2009 was not intentional rather due to reason that his counsel noted down the date as September 21, 2009. Moreover, it was a summons case and provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C. are applicable. As such, the order is liable to be quashed and complaint restored. 3. This Court has given an anxious thought to the aforesaid submissions and find legal as well as factual substance. 4. Undoubtedly, the complaint preferred by the appellantcomplainant is under Section 138 of the Act, the provisions of Section 256 Cr.P.C. are attracted and in such situation, ld. trial court would have made an effort to give notice either to the complainant or to his counsel, especially, in the circumstances when the accused were being summoned by issuance of non-bailable warrants against them. The absence of complainant on September 02, 2009 can neither be termed intentional nor wilful but it appears that it is due to the reasons explained by him i.e. due to noting of wrong date as September 21, 2009. 5. In the light of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside by way of acceptance of instant appeal. 6. The ld. 5. In the light of what has been discussed above, the impugned order is set aside by way of acceptance of instant appeal. 6. The ld. trial court is directed to restore the complaint No.814/22.11.01/16.9.04, captioned as “Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. M/s Asia Spintex Ltd. and others” at its original number and to proceed with the same, in accordance with law. 7. The appellant-complainant is directed to appear in the Court of ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 10.03.2016, who shall either retain this complaint or entrust the same to any other competent court.