JUDGMENT : Shivakant Prasad, J. None appears on call. 2. Pursuant to an application for Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order of acquittal the instant appeal was preferred and the appellant was allowed to address the Court on merit of the order by granting Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated July 06, 2001. The appeal was accordingly admitted being in time and in form. 3. The pith and marrow of the prosecution case leading this appeal is that the appellant, Ceat Financial Services Limited as complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, as amended by the Banking Public Financial Institutions & Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 read with Section 141 of the said Act wherein it was alleged that the accused had issued three cheques totaling a sum of Rs. 78,552/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Ballygunge Branch, Calcutta in favour of the complainant company in discharge of its debts and liability towards the outstanding dues payable to the complainant-company. Since cheques were dishonoured usual notice dated 17.04.1998 was issued upon the accused persons/ respondents and after expiry of statutory period the complaint was lodged for the issuance of the process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 141 of the said Act. It appears that the case was fixed on 04.06.1998 for inquiry under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but on the said date the complainant was found absent. However, another date was given for inquiry and on 05.08.1998 and the Officer of the complainant Mr. Asim Mishra was examined on solemn affirmation under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On considering a prima facie case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 141 of the said Act, summons to the accused persons were issued. But on the adjourned dated on 23.10.1998 the complainant was absent without taking steps for requisites to be filed for the process to be issued upon the respondents/ accused persons. The case was adjourned to 05.12.1998 when the complainant was absent by filing petition with a prayer for condonation of his absence. The complainant was found absent on 11.02.1999; 25.03.1999; 29.05.1999; 27.07.1999; 27.09.1999; 22.12.1999; 01.03.2000; 23.06.2000; 05.09.2000 and 29.11.2000. 4. The case was adjourned to 05.12.1998 when the complainant was absent by filing petition with a prayer for condonation of his absence. The complainant was found absent on 11.02.1999; 25.03.1999; 29.05.1999; 27.07.1999; 27.09.1999; 22.12.1999; 01.03.2000; 23.06.2000; 05.09.2000 and 29.11.2000. 4. The above dates were fixed for examination of the accused persons for recording their plea under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the adjourned dated i.e. 30.01.2001 the complainant was absent. On repeated call without taking any steps. Whereas the accused on court bail was present and the accused no. 1 company was being represented under Section 305 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. Upon hearing the defence counsel since the complainant was found absent without taking steps learned Magistrate finding that the complainant had lost its interest acquitted the accused persons/ respondents herein under Section 256(1) of the Code by the order dated 30.01.2001 which is the order impugned before this Court. 6. The appellant has taken the ground of appeal, inter alia, that the date was fixed for examination under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereas the learned court dismissed the complaint and acquitted the accused under Section 256 of the Code. It has been contended that since the learned advocate for the appellant could not be present due to pre-occupation and the complainant representing the court was absent due to illness, the learned Magistrate ought to have deferred the case. 7. It would be apt to take note of the provision under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that: "256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.- (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day: Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case." 8. Thus, bearing in mind the provisions of this Code above quoted and considering the dismal conduct of the appellant, I do not find any ground to interfere into the order of acquittal passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal being C.R.A. 279 of 2001 is dismissed. 10. Let the LCR be sent down to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta along with a copy of this judgment.