IMPORTANT POINT
A party's absence due to valid health reasons should not result in case dismissal, highlighting the importance of fair trial rights.

JUDGMENT :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

Since the issue involved and the parties are one and the same, with the consent of the parties, these Criminal Appeals are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

2. The Complainant is the Appellant and the Accused is Respondent No.1 in these Appeals.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in Calendar Case.

Crl.A.No.585 of 2023

4. Impugning the Judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed in CC No.2374 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

5. (a) The brief facts of the case are that the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the Complainant on 08.05.2016 for the purpose of discharging sundry debts and their family expenses. Accused and his wife jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Complainant. On several demands, Accused has issued a cheque bearing No.201890 dated 18.12.2016 for Rs.50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Thadithota Branch, Rajamahendravaram towards part payment of the amount taken from the Complainant.

(b) When the Complainant presented the said cheque to his banker, State Bank of Hyderabad, Tilak Road, Rajamahendravaram for collection, the same was returned with a Memo dated 28.12.2016 with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds” in the account of the Accused.

(c) The Complainant got issued a registered notice on 17.01.2017 to the Accused demanding to repay the said amount. Having received the said notice, on 21.01.2017, Accused gave a reply with false and untenable grounds.

(d) A private Complaint came to be filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offences Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the N.I.Act."). The Learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, has numbered the case as CC No.2374 of 2018 and taken cognizance of the offences.

Crl.A.No.586 of 2023

6. Impugning the Judgment dated 09.01.2023 passed in CC No.2366 of 2018 on the file of the Court of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant.

7. (a) The brief facts of the case are that the Accused borrowed an amount of Rs.3,60,000/- from the Complainant on 08.05.2016 for the purpose of discharging sundry debts and their family expenses. Accused and his wife jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the Complainant. On several demands, Accused has issued a cheque bearing No.208191 dated 29.12.2016 for Rs.1,50,000/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Thadithota Branch, Rajamahendravaram towards part payment of the amount taken from the Complainant.

(b) When the Complainant presented the said cheque to his banker, State Bank of Hyderabad, Tilak Road, Rajamahendravaram for collection, the same was returned with a Memo dated 29.12.2016 with an endorsement “Insufficient Funds” in the account of the Accused.

(c) The Complainant got issued a registered notice on 17.01.2017 to the Accused demanding to repay the said amount. Having received the said notice, on 21.01.2017, Accused gave a reply with false and untenable grounds.

(d) A private Complaint came to be filed by the Complainant against the Accused for the offences Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "the N.I.Act."). The Learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram, has numbered the case as CC No.2366 of 2018 and taken cognizance of the offences.

8. The grievance of the Complainant/respondent No.1 is that when the above calendar cases came up for continuation of chief examination of P.W.1 conditionally, he was called absent on that day and the learned Trial Judge vide Judgment dated 25.11.2022 in CC No.2374 of 2018 and vide Judgment dated 09.01.2023 in CC No.2366 of 2018 eschewed the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and the complaint was dismissed for defau