It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that on 3.9.2016, when the appellant appeared before the learned trial Court, he came to know that his case was not listed. Then he moved an application for tracing the file and marking his presence, on which the Ahlmad of the Court reported that the case has already been decided on 6.8.2016 and the learned trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that since the main file has been decided, thus the application was not maintainable. The appellant came to know that his case was adjourned to 6.8.2016 instead of 3.9.2016 after 21.7.2016 and on 6.8.2016 the same was dismissed in default due to non-appearance of appellant and for want of prosecution vide the impugned order. It has been mentioned that the absence of the appellant before the learned trial Court was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to the facts and circumstances narrated above without any fault of the appellant, while the case was fixed for appearance of the accused through non-bailable warrants and so the presence of the appellant was not specifically required even otherwise, so the learned trial Court had acted in violation of the spirit of Section 256 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside. It has been further prayed that the complaint of the appellant may be restored to its original number, in the interest of justice.
