CRLA/25/2022
2023 Latest Caselaw 556 AP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 556 AP
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2023

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

CRLA/25/2022 on 2 February, 2023

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

              CRIMINAL APPEAL No.25 of 2022

Order:

       This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the

order, dated 14.02.2020, passed in C.C.No.803 of 2019

by the learned Special Magistrate-VII, Visakhapatnam.


2.     A private complaint in CC No.803 of 201 on the

file     of     the        learned     Special     Magistrate-VII,

Visakhapatnam has been filed as against the second

respondent herein for the offence punishable under

Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. The learned Magistrate,

dismissed the said complaint, by an order, dated

14.02.2020, which reads thus.

"Complainant is called absent, accused is present, a petition U/s 256 CrPC is filed but the said petition is rejected as there is no representation for the complainant, cost is also reported as not paid to the accused, the copies of the remaining pages of the Angeekarapatram are also reported as not supplied to the accused though it was directed to the complainant on the previous

adjournment. Hence, this complaint is dismissed for default and accused is acquitted for the offence U/S 138 of NI Act."

Against the said order, the present Criminal

Appeal came to be filed by the complainant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant

contends that the appellant/complainant could not

make his appearance before the court below only on

one occasion, and on that ground, the learned

Magistrate dismissed the complaint for default and

acquitted 2nd respondent/accused, and non-appearance

of the complainant before the lower Court is neither

negligence nor deliberate and it is only because of the

directions issued by this Court.

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

(2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 726

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.

6. In view of the above precedent, this Court is of the

view that the impugned order, dated 14.02.2020,

passed in C.C.No.803 of 2019 by the learned Special

Magistrate-VII, Visakhapatnam, is set aside.

C.C.No.803 of 2019 is restored to the file of the learned

Magistrate for disposal of the same in accordance with

law.