Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S. Maxwella Formulations Pvt ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 April, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
Criminal Revision Case No.325 of 2023
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the docket
order, dated 28.09.2022, passed in CC No.34 of 2020 by the learned
Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Nellore.
2. The petitioner herein filed a complaint, under Section 200 of
Cr.P.C. against 2nd respondent/accused for the alleged offence
punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, and the same was taken on file as CC No.34 of
2020. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said CC for default, by
the impugned order dated 28.09.2022, which reads as follows.
"Complainant is called absent. No representation on
behalf of complainant. Batta not paid to issue fresh
summons to accused inspite of passing conditional orders.
Hence, the compliant is dismissed under Section 256
Cr.P.C., for non-appearance and non payment of batta."
Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case
came to be filed by the complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
the petitioner was suffering from post Covid-19 symptoms and taking
treatment and non-appearance of the petitioner/complainant before
the lower Court is neither wilfull nor deliberate, but for the reason
stated above. He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought
not to have dismissed the complaint for absence of the complainant
on one day.
4. 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"
5. 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. Further, the petitioner has shown sufficient
cause for his absence.
6. In view of the above precedent, the impugned order, dated
28.09.2022, passed in C.C.No.34 of 2020 by the learned Principal
Junior Civil Judge-cum-Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Nellore, is set aside. C.C.No.34 of 2020 is restored to the file of the
learned Magistrate for disposal of the same in accordance with law,
as expeditiously as possible.
7. The Criminal Revision Case, is accordingly, allowed.
(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 726
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed.
_____________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Dated:21.04.2023
Asr
