Mr. Dilly Konda Reddy vs The State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4249 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.468 of 2021

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant aggrieved

by the orders passed in C.C.No.535 of 2017 on 11.04.2018, whereby the

learned II Special Magistrate, Hyderabad, dismissed the complaint filed

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, on the

ground that the complainant is absent, no representation, process not

paid and the accused is acquitted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Non-Bailable

Warrant (NBW) was pending against the respondent No.2/accused from

27.11.2017 onwards. He further submits that on 11.04.2018, the

appellant is not appeared in the Court below and the junior counsel has

wrongly noted the hearing date as 12.04.2018 instead of 06.03.2018. As

such, on 06.03.2018, neither the appellant nor his counsel is present and

without considering the same, the Court below passed the impugned

order. He submits that the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed

the application for the absence of one day, which would cause lot of

hardship to the appellant. Further, for the mistake committed by the

junior counsel, the party should not be made to suffer. He further

submits that even if the impugned order is set aside, no prejudice would

be caused to respondent No.2/accused.

3. This Court has permitted the appellant to take out personal notice

on respondent No.2, vide order dated 26.03.2019. But, none appeared

on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Heard Mr.Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant, and perused the material on record.

5. In the impugned order, it is not even recorded by the learned

Judge that on the earlier occasion i.e., on 22.02.2018, the appellant is

absent or not. But, as per the docket proceedings, it appears that the

appellant was absent on four occasions and further NBWs were issued

on 27.11.2017 against the accused. Balancing the interest of both the

parties, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order

dated 11.04.2018 on certain conditions.

6. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the

order, dated 11.04.2018, passed by the learned II Special Magistrate,

Hyderabad, subject to payment of costs of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty

thousand only) to respondent No.2/accused.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand dismissed.

__________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

Date: 10.12.2021

mar/sj