ORDER:

1. On 25.10.2021 none appeared for the petitioner and also for the private respondents. On 08.11.2021, on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was listed after three weeks. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner represents that he has not received any instructions from his client.

2. The revision is of the year 2006 and it is an old one.

3. I have perused the material on record and proceed to decide with the assistance of Sri Karri Murali Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Sri S. Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 3rd respondent-State.

4. This revision has been filed challenging the order dated 10.11.2006, passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Proddatur in C.C.No.356 of 1999, by which, the complainant/revisionist’s complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I.Act”) was dismissed.

5. The complaint was filed against A.1 to A.5 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I.Act upon which the Court below took cognizance against all the accused persons and issued summons. On 30.01.2001, Non Bailable Warrant was issued against A.3 and N.B.W was also issued to A.1 on 22.12.2003, but the complainant did not take steps for execution of N.B.Ws and more than six years passed. The judgment under challenge reveals that the case against A.2, A.4 and A.5 was quashed by this Court. By order dated 08.09.2006, the court below directed the complainant to take steps to execute the N.B.Ws against the accused fixing 06.10.2006, providing that in case of default the complaint shall stand dismissed. On 06.10.2006, the complainant requested for time for taking steps which was granted till 23.10.2006, providing again that in default, the complaint shall stand dismissed. On 23.10.2006 also on the request of the complainant, the case was adjourned by the court below granting further time by 06.11.2006, but neither on 06.11.2006 nor on the next date i.e., 10.11.2006, the complainant took steps and failed to pay continuation batta/process fee.

6. The learned court below dismissed the complaint and refused to grant further adjournment, by the order under challenge.

7. Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.P.C.”) provides for issuance of process and sub- section (4) thereof provides that whereby any law for the time being in force any process-fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint. Section 204 of Cr.P.C is being reproduced as under:-

“204. Issue of process.

(1) If in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence there is sufficient ground for proceeding, and the case appears to be-

(a) a summons- case, he shall issue his summons for the attendance of the accused, or (b) a warrant- case, he may issue a warrant, or, if he thinks fit, a summons, for causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or (if he has no jurisdiction himself) some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.

(2) No summons or warrant shall be issued against the accused under sub- section (1) until a list of the prosecution witnesses has been filed.

(3) In a proceeding instituted upon a complaint made in writing every summons or warrant issued under sub- section (1) shall be accompanied by a copy of such complaint.

“(4) When by any law for the time being in force any process- fees or other fees are payable, no process shall be issued until the fees are paid and, if such fees are not paid within a reasonable time, the Magistrate may dismiss the complaint.”

8. Section 144 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short, “the N.I.Act”), provides for mode of service of summons and reads as under:-

“144. Mode of service of summons:—

(1) No