T.V.V. Nageshwarar Rao, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3063 Tel

        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