HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.668 of 2025

ORDER :

Challenging the order, dated 13.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2025 in C.C.N.I.No.89 of 2024 by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad (for short ‘trial Court’), this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that a complaint was filed by respondent No.2-complainant against them for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was taken on file and numbered as C.C.N.I.No.89 of 2024. Upon commencement of trial, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to examine petitioner-accused No.2 as a defense witness, which was numbered as Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2023. They have also filed an application under Section 254(1) of Cr.P.C. to receive certain documents, but the same was not numbered till date. When the matter came up before the trial Court on 13.08.2025, the petitioners’ counsel was unable to appear as he was engaged in another matter before a Court in Andhra Pradesh. Simultaneously, the petitioner-accused No.2 failed to reach the trial Court on time due to incessant rain. Despite these circumstances, on the said day i.e., on 13.08.2025, the trial Court passed the order as follows:

“Complainant is present. Accused is absent, no representation, hence issued BW against the accused. Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2025 is allowed, for defense evidence. Call on 29.08.2025. Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2025, petitioner/accused and his counsel are called absent, no representation, hence this petition is dismissed for default”.

Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed this Criminal Revision Case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2025. The impugned order was passed without proper consideration of the material facts and relevant legal provisions. Dismissing the application for default has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners’ right to present their defense. In proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the burden of rebuttal lies upon the accused, therefore, it is imperative that a fair opportunity be extended to the petitioners to substantiate their defense in an effective manner. It is further contended that once an application is allowed, the subsequent dismissal of the same on the ground of default reflects a misunderstanding of legal procedure and demonstrates a degree of legal nescience. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed for the same.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, taking into account that no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.2-complainant, as an opportunity will be afforded to cross-examine the petitioner-accused No.2, and in the interest of proper adjudication of the matter, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.08.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.No.443 of 2025 in C.C.N.I.No.89 of 2024 by the learned XVI Additional Judge-cum-XX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Secunderabad, is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to issue summons to the petitioner-accused No.2 by fixing a specific date for his examination and the chief examination and cross examination of the petitioner-accused No.2 shall be completed on the very same day without any adjournment. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant before the trial Court is directed to cross examine the petitioner-accused No.2 on the date so fixed. It is made clear that if the petitioner-accused No.2 fails to appear before the trial C