- (1.)BY way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(A) " THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO quash and set aside the impugned order dated 30/11/2010 passed by the Court of Hon'ble Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13 in Criminal Case No. 721/2003 and order dated 17/03/2011 passed by the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application no. 28/2011, in the interest of justice. (B) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO order that the Criminal Case No. 721/2003 may be restored of file considered on merits and disposed of expeditiously, in the interest of justice and equity. (C) Pending admission hearing and till final disposal of present petition THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO stay the order dated 30/11/2010 passed by the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.13 in Criminal Case No. 721/2003 and order dated 17/03/2011 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application no. 28/2011, in the interest of justice and equity. (D) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO award the costs of present petition. (E) THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice".

(2.)TO state the facts precisely arising out of this petition, the petitioner is original complainant who lodged complaint against respondent no.2 herein for alleged offences under sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 721 of 2003 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The facts reveal that the petitioner­original complainant was formerly staying in Ahmedabad and now he stays at Ratlam and rojkam which is part of this petition also indicates that the complaint is being heard on different dates from the date of its filing i.e. 4.4.2003 till the impugned order dated 30.11.2010 was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Magistrate on account of the fact that the petitioner-original complainant did not remain present, dismissed the complaint for default. Rojkam indicates that the said order was passed on 30.11.2010 and the said complaint was placed for hearing earlier on 18.11.2010.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner ­ original complainant filed Revision as provided u/s. 397 of Cr.P.C. before the learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad which came to be registered as Criminal Revision Application No. 28 of 2011. The said revision came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 17.3.2011. The impugned orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad dated 30.11.2010 and the order dated 17.3.2011 passed by learned City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad rejecting revision are challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code.

(3.)MR . Hakim, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-original complainant has submitted that only on one occasion the petitioner-original complainant could not remain present as could be seen from rojkam and the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the said complaint. Mr. Hakim, learned Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Azeem Vs. A. Venkatesh And Another, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 726 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Vs. M/s. Sh. Durga Ji Traders & Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 700 and has contended that considering the facts arising in this petition as well as considering the rojkam, only because the original complainant was not present on 30.11.2010 the impugned order dismissing the complaint came to be passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Mr. Hakim submitted that even the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous on face of it and the learned Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that he has wrongly considered the facts on record and has wrongly dismissed the revision.