THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.619 of 2025

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Case is filed seeking to set aside the order, dated 24.07.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.64 of 2022 (old Crl.A.No.25 of 2019) by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Hanumakonda (for short ‘the Sessions Court’); to restore the Appeal to file; to direct the Sessions Court to dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits in accordance with law and consequently, to recall the non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5.

2. Heard Mr. Venu Cheggam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. Perused the record.

3. The case of the petitioners is that they were convicted for the offence under Section 379 r/w 411 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, by the judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed in C.C.No.1391 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred the Criminal Appeal before the Sessions Court. However, vide order, dated 24.07.2025 the Sessions Court dismissed the Appeal for default and the said order reads as follows:

“Appellant Nos.1 and 5 present and requested time. Appellant Nos.2, 3 and 4 called absent. No representation inspite of granting ample opportunity and even after imposing condition, the appellants failed to submit their arguments even after passing over the matter upto 5.40 PM. Hence, this Court is constrained to dismiss the Crl.A.No.64/2022 for default of non-

prosecuting the matter”.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the Criminal Appeal for default. The appeal cannot be dismissed for default without going into the merits of the case. It is further contended that the absence of petitioners counsel and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 in the Sessions Court on the said date is not intentional. Hence, he prayed that the impugned order be set aside and that an opportunity be granted to the petitioners to prosecute their case.

5. It is well settled law that no criminal appeal can be dismissed on the ground of default of appearance. The Court has to go through the record and decide the matter on merits even in the absence of the appellants or their counsel. In the instant case, having gone through the record, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the Appeal for default on the ground that the counsel for the petitioners and the petitioners-

accused Nos.2 to 4 failed to appear before the Court.

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Sessions Court erred in dismissing the Appeal for default. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed, setting aside the order, dated 24.07.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.64 of 2022 (old Crl.A.No.25 of 2019) by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge at Hanumakonda and the matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court shall fix a date for the appearance of the parties and proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. With regard to recall of non-bailable warrants, the petitioners are at liberty to file an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the NBWs issued against them. On such application being filed, the Sessions Court shall consider the same preferably on the very same day, in accordance with law, by imposing certain conditions.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________ JUVVADI SRIDEVI, J Date: 04.09.2025 rev