JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-original complainant challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13th December, 2017 passed in Criminal Case No.3200055 of 2016 below Exh. 1 by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I.Act Court No. 32, Ahmedabad dismissing the complaint for default which was filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. It is case of the complainant that the complainant filed the private complaint who is the Goldsmith against the respondent-accused who is LIC agent. The money was lended by the complainant in part for the purpose of purchasing the house during April, 2015. When the amount was demanded back, the cheque bearing No. 555650 dated 28th October, 2015 for the amount of Rs.32,80,000/- was issued in favour of the complainant. On depositing the cheque, it was dishonored with an endorsement of “Fund insufficient” on 29th October, 2015. After following due procedure prescribed under the Act, a private complaint came to be filed before the competent Court. Learned Court has issued the summons after recording the verification vide order dated 13th January, 2016. Thereafter, the matter was kept on 23rd February, 2016 and 6th May, 2016. On 6th May, 2016, the respondent-accused appeared and plea was recorded below Exh. 7. Thereafter, time to time, the criminal case was being adjourned. On 16.9.2017, again the case was adjourned after keeping the notice on the outside of the Court that if on the next date of hearing, the complainant or his advocate fail to appear than the order would be passed under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. On 1st November, 2017, though the notice board reflects the case number of the present case as well as the notice was issued to the learned advocate for the complainant, neither the advocate nor the complainant remained present. Again for giving one more chance, the case was adjourned on 13th December, 2017. On 13th December, 2017, the same situation arisen and no-one was present therefore, learned trial Court has passed the order dismissing the complaint by exercising the power under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code which is impugned before this Court. 3. Heard Ms. Meena Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant-original complainant and Mr. S.M.Sojatwala, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 4. Ms. 3. Heard Ms. Meena Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant-original complainant and Mr. S.M.Sojatwala, learned advocate for the respondent No. 1. 4. Ms. Meena Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant submits that the complaint was filed on 3rd January, 2016 and the process came to be issued under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code Learned advocate for the complainant has been instructed to appear on behalf of the complainant and he did not remain present, therefore, the complaint came to be dismissed. Learned advocate submits that though under Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code the notice is required to be issued. However, doing the same the power was exercised by dismissing the matter for non-prosecution. Learned advocate submits that because of the nonappearance of the advocate of the complainant, the complainant caused huge loss as the case pertaining to the Negotiable Instrument Act is a time barred litigation and dismissing the complaint for default, would bar the fresh complaint therefore, if this complaint would not be restore to its original file than, the genuine case of the complainant would suffer. By submitting the same, learned advocate prays to order to restore the original complaint to its file and direct the learned trial Court to decide the case on its merits. 5. As against the aforesaid arguments, the submission made by learned advocate for the respondent is that after filing the complaint, the complainant did not turn up for further proceedings, and though the respondent-accused appear and his plea was recorded on 6.5.2016, the complainant did not remain present for the crossexamination and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the judgment and order of the acquittal. 5.1. Learned advocate further submits that in fact outside of the Court, on the notice board, the notice was put as well as notice to learned advocate was also issued by the learned trial Court before exercising the power. However, despite the same learned advocate or the complainant remain failed in appearing before the learned trial Court. Therefore, there was no alternative with learned trial Court except to dismiss the complaint. 5.2. Learned advocate submits that in fact the status and date would be available on the tip of the finger as there was daily updation on the internet with regard to the next date of hearing. Therefore, there was no alternative with learned trial Court except to dismiss the complaint. 5.2. Learned advocate submits that in fact the status and date would be available on the tip of the finger as there was daily updation on the internet with regard to the next date of hearing. However, despite of the same, learned advocate or the complainant did not bother to inquire with regard to pendency of the case and therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly exercised the power dismissing the complaint for non-prosecution and therefore, no interference is required. 6. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, before going into the merits, Section 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code is required to be looked into in which the impugned order is passed. “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. (2) The provisions of sub- section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non- appearance of the complainant is due to his death.” 7. Keeping in mind, the aforesaid provision if now, the facts of the case is looked into. As per Rojkam, it reflects that private complaint came to be filed on 13th January, 2016 wherein, the summons came to be issued after recording the verification of the complaint. Thereafter, the accused appeared and his plea was recorded on 6.5.2016, however, on that day also neither the complainant nor his advocate remained present Time to time, it was adjourned up to the date when the impugned order was passed i.e. on 13th December, 2017. That, after recording the verification neither the complainant bothered to take the follow up from the learned advocate nor learned advocate appeared before the learned trial Court. That, after recording the verification neither the complainant bothered to take the follow up from the learned advocate nor learned advocate appeared before the learned trial Court. Therefore, learned trial Court can not be forced to wait for indefinite period 8. It is true that the complainant having fair case should not suffer because of the absence of learned advocate but, at the same time dilatory tactics on the part of the complainant who set the criminal law in motion by filing the private complaint should be restricted. As accused who is forced to attend the court on all posting days was put harassment by the complainant by not remaining present before the court, on the occasions when his presence was necessary. With a view to protect to the accused against such tactics of the complainant, the provision of Section 256 was added in the Code. 9. Commenting on the delay in the justice-delivery system, although in respect of the criminal trial, Krishna Iyer, J. in the case of Babu Singh v. State of U.P. (1978) 1 SCC 579 has observed in paragraph 4 as under:- “4. … Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to ‘fair trial’, whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.” 10. Then the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod vs. Gopal & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.14117-14118 of 2021 observed that: “5.5 Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a times, the task of adjournments is used to kill Justice. Repeated adjournments break the back of the litigants. The courts are enjoying upon to perform their duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man in the institution entrusted with the administration of the justice. Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The courts have to be diligence and take timely action in order to usher in efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law. We are also aware that whenever the trial courts refused to grant unnecessary adjournments many a times they are accused of being strict and they may face displeasure of the Bar. However, the judicial officers shall not worry about that if his conscience is clear and the judicial officer has to bear in mind his duties to the litigants who are before the courts and who have come for justice and for whom Courts are meant and all efforts shall be made by the courts to provide timely justice to the litigants. ...” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) by his Lrs. & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 535 observed as under: “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. ...” 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S. Rama Krishna vs. S. Rami Reddy (Dead) by his Lrs. & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 535 observed as under: “A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Ss. 256(1) and 378(1) – Ingredients of S. 256(1) – Acquittal of accused on nonappearance of complainant – Exercise of jurisdiction by Magistrate under S. 256(1) – Scope of – Conduct of the complainant significant – Interference of High Court under S. 378(1) in appeal against acquittal of accused recorded by Magistrate in exercise of discretion under S. 256(1) whether justified – Complaint filed against appellant for dishonour of cheque on 6.6.2001 – After death of complainant his heirs did not press their application for substitution – On 14 dates between 18.4.2005 to 23.1.2006 nobody represented the complainant – accused kept appearing on most dates – Noticing respondent heirs’ failure to attend court for a long time, Magistrate under S. 256 acquitted the appellant on 23.1.2006 – High Court in appeal under S. 378(1), despite finding that respondent heirs were not interested in getting the matter prosecuted, set aside the order of acquittal on ground that lis between the parties should be decided on merits and directed that respondents be given one more opportunity – Held, High Court in appeal against acquittal erred in interfering with the discretion exercised by Magistrate under S. 256(1)” 12. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned cases, in the instant case after recording the verification neither the complainant nor his advocate remain present. In the appeal memo, it was contended that there was one another matter which was tagged with the present complaint but, the appellant was no knowledge when this matter was started. It is contended in para 2 that only for three occasions the appellant and his advocate did not remain present. However, on perusing the record and proceedings, it transpires that after verification came to be recorded i.e. on 13th January, 2016, none of the occasion, the complainant or his advocate remain present. It is obligatory upon the complainant to co-operate with the trial and to see that it is concluded without any delay. However, the complainant after setting the criminal law in motion, did not turn up these proceedings. Therefore, learned trial Court justifying in dismissing the complainant on non-prosecution. 13. It is obligatory upon the complainant to co-operate with the trial and to see that it is concluded without any delay. However, the complainant after setting the criminal law in motion, did not turn up these proceedings. Therefore, learned trial Court justifying in dismissing the complainant on non-prosecution. 13. The impugned order passed while learned trial Court in the year 2017 and appeal came to be filed in the year 2020 i.e. delay of 557 days. It is true that the application for condonation of delay was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16th December, 2019. However, this is also relevant fact while deciding the appeal on its merits. As from this delay, it can be concluded that the complainant lost his interest in the proceedings. Therefore, also the judgment and order of dismissal of the complaint for non-prosecution appear to be just and proper. 14. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 13th December, 2017 is just and legal order and therefore, no interference is required to be called for, as the same is passed after giving sufficient opportunities to the complainant. Therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality found in the impugned order. 15. For the reasons above mentioned, the present appeal is dismissed. Record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.