JUDGMENT : Nutan D Sardessai, J. 1. The appellant challenged the order dated 20.06.2017 passed in the Criminal Appeal No.OA/446/NIA/2015/B passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda on the premise that the learned Trial Court had totally ignored the fact that the appellant was otherwise diligent in the pursuit of his matter and that on a particular date he had instructed his advocate to seek a long date and that he would make alternate arrangement for the matter to be conducted at his instance. However on the scheduled date the advocate in question had taken a short date and which was not informed to him and on that count he was not able to appear before the learned Trial Court. There was no reason for the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to hastily conclude that the complainant was not interested in the pursuit of the matter and to dismiss the complaint for non prosecution. 2. It was further the contention of Ms. Asha Dessai, learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant was always diligent in pursuing his case and it was a case where he had taken positive decision to withdraw the cases from his advocate and to engage another advocate to successfully steer his cases. There was no basis for the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class to hold that he was not diligent in the pursuit of his case and hence the impugned order was required to be quashed and set aside. 3. Shri O. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the appellant was not at all diligent in the pursuit of the matter and therefore, there was no basis to quash the impugned order. 4. I have heard Ms. Asha Desai, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri O. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the respondent. It is apparent from the records that leave was granted to the appellant to file the appeal and thereafter the appeal has come up for hearing assailing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class holding that the appellant was not diligent in the pursuit of his matter. It is apparent from the records that leave was granted to the appellant to file the appeal and thereafter the appeal has come up for hearing assailing the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class holding that the appellant was not diligent in the pursuit of his matter. It is apparent on the basis of the assertion made by the appellant duly affirmed on oath that it was due to some miscommunication of the advocate concerned that the appellant missed out his appearance before the learned Trial Court and which order came to be passed dismissing his complaint. The appellant could not be said to be lacking in diligence in the pursuit of his matter and therefore, there was no reason for the Judicial Magistrate, First Class to hold so. Besides, the appellant has sufficiently accounted for the reasons why he could not appear for the hearing on the scheduled date when the order came to be passed in the matter. 5. In the circumstances therefore, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ponda on 27.01.2020 at 10.00 a.m.