Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5905
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRSENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 299 OF 2023 Between:
1. YALLAPRAGADA UMA SUNDARI W/o. Y.L.N. Sharma, Aged about 56 Years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. D.No. 17-17-17-17-71, Opp. Sai baba Temple, D.V. Subba Rao Nagar, Vetapalem Village and Mandal, Prakasam District. ...PETITIONER(S)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Rep by Public Prosecutor, The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 2. Katteboyina Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Tirupathaiah, Aged about 51 Years, R/o. Swarnamma Temple Road, Swarna Village, Karamchedu Mandal, Prakasam District.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner(s): T D PANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following: ORDER HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.299 of 2023
Order:
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment, dated 24.01.2023, passed in C.C.No.2 of 2020 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala.
2. A private complaint has been filed as against the second respondent herein in CC No.2 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned Magistrate, dismissed the said complaint, by way of a judgment, dated 24.01.2023, which reads thus.
“Complainant called absent. No representation.
Batta process not paid since three years and no representation. Hence, this complaint is dismissed for default.”
3. Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint for absence of the complainant on one day.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Azeem Vs.
A. Venkatesh and another 1, held,
“In our opinion, the learned Magistrate and the High Court have adopted a very strict and unjust attitude resulting in failure of justice. In our opinion, the learned Magistrate committed an error in acquitting the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant”
6. In view of the above judgment, I am also of the view that the cases cannot be dismissed for the reason that the complainant was absent for a single day.
7. In view of the above precedent, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment, dated 24.01.2023, passed in C.C.No.2 of 2020 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chirala, is set aside. C.C.No.2 of 2020 is restored to the file of the learned Magistrate for disposal of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
8. The Criminal Revision Case, is accordingly, allowed.
9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_____________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Dated:18.04.2023 Nsr HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Rivision Case No.299 of 2023 Dated:18.04.2023 Nsr
