THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1931 of 2006
ORDER:
This criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner/appellant/accused aggrieved by the orders of the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, in Crl.M.P. No.83 of 2006 in Crl.A.SR No.655 of 2006, dated 31.08.2006.
2. The case of the petitioner was that he was the accused in CC No.952 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint against him for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the NI Act') and the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicted him under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for twenty days, and directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. to the complainant.
3. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitoner preferred an appeal and filed a petition to suspend the sentence passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, along with a condone delay petition to condone the delay of one day in preferring the appeal. The condone delay petition was numbered as Crl.M.P. No.83 of 2006.
2 Dr.GRR,J
Crl.R.C. No.1931 of 2006
4. Notice was ordered to the respondent. Due to non-payment of process on the date fixed for hearing and as there was no representation of the case, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed Crl.M.P. No.83 of 2006 on 31.08.2006. Aggrieved by the said dismissal order, the petitioner preferred this revision case contending that the Court below ought to have issued notice to the petitioner/accused before dismissing the Crl.M.P. No.83 of 2006 and ought to have condoned the delay and heard it on merits as there was only one day delay in preferring the appeal. The Court ought to have suspended the judgment of the III ACMM, the petitioner was a non- local and he could not appear before the Court on the said date due to personal inconvenience and prayed to allow the revision.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the judgment of the III ACMM was not suspended, the petitioner was arrested, that the petitioner filed a fresh petition to condone the delay and to suspend the judgment of the III ACMM, but the same was returned as the second petition was not maintainable when the same was dismissed once. Hence, the petitioner had no other alternative remedy except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court and prayed to allow the revision petition.
7. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and as the petition in Crl.M.P. No.86 of 2006 was dismissed 3 Dr.GRR,J Crl.R.C. No.1931 of 2006 for non-deposit of process, and as the petitioner was contending that he had a good case on merits in the appeal and he was also willing to compromise the case with the 2nd respondent and that the negotiations were in process, it is considered fit to allow the revision petition giving an opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute the matter with due diligence in the first appellate Court.
8. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed _____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J October 28, 2021.
KTL