M. Venugopal, J.

1. Heard both sides.

2. The Petitioner/Sole accused has projected the instant Criminal Revision Petition before this Court (As an aggrieved person) as against the order dated 21.10.2016 in Crl. M.P. No. 3015 of 2016 passed by the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet.

3. The Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet while passing the Impugned Order in Crl. M.P. No. 3015 of 2016 in C.C. No. 1121 of 2012 (filed by the Petitioner/Accused) at Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 had inter-alia observed the following:-

"......The contention of petitioner that he remained absent on 16.06.2016 and thus this court constrained to issue NBW against him, is found to be untrue. It is pertinent to note that, on 20.01.2016, when the matter Cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2, who are all recalled at the instance of accused, the petitioner/accused remained absent. Further on 20.01.2016, the PW-1 and PW-2 were present for cross examination and upto 12.10 p.m. no representation for accused. Thus this court constrained to issue NBW to the accused. The cross examination on those witnesses was not commenced from the side of the accused on that day. Further more, on perusal of records it