Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, the complainant petitioner has impugned the order dated 24th March, 2003 as also the order dated 29th April, 2003 rendered by Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer and District & Sessions Judge, Ajmer respectively.
(2.) Having carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is found that one complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was pending against the accused. That complaint was dismissed by the learned trial court on 25.2.2003 on account of non appearance of the complainant Prakash. Thereafter the complainant filed an application on 27.2.2003 beseeching the court to restore the complaint at its original number. The learned trial court dismissed the restoration application vide order dated 24th March, 2003. Aggrieved with this order, the complainant petitioner filed a revision petition and the same also stood dismissed.
(3.) The learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer dismissed the revision petition on the ground that in the absence of the petitioner complainant Prakash, the complaint for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending against the accused was dismissed in the absence of the complainant invoking the provisions of Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned Sessions Judge further observed that complaint dismissed under Section 256 of Criminal Procedure Code tangibly suggests the acquittal of the accused. Hence, once the order with regard to acquittal of the accused is passed by the court, that case could never be restored to its original number.;