APHC010301162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 443/2024 Between: Ojili Abbai Reddy ...APELLANT AND Kinnera Prasad and Others ...RESPODENT(S) Counsel for the Apellant: 1. G VIJAYA SARADHI Counsel for the Respodent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.A.No. 443 of 2024 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 443 of 2024 JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.02.2023 passed in C.C.No. 506 of 2019 on the file of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. 2. Heard Sri G.Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel for the appellant/complainant and Ms. K.Priyanka Lakshmi, learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State. Notice has been delivered to the respondent No.1 who is the accused. None represented. Accused called absent. 3. As can be seen from the impugned judgment that on the given date, the complainant could not appear before the Court. There was no representation. Accused also did not appear and there was no representation on his behalf. The matter called thrice. The impugned judgment further shows that the process not paid for Non-Bailable Warrant inspite of conditional order. Then the complaint was dismissed for default. Accused was acquitted. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the present of the complainant on the given date is not required, the matter is coming up for payment of process for issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant. Learned Judge dismissed the complaint which is preferred by the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant would further submit that there is no deliberate intention on the part of the Complainant on the given date not to appear before the Trial Court. 3 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.A.No. 443 of 2024 Appellant has got very much interest to prosecute his case. The subject cheque is worth of Rs.6,62,500/-. One more opportunity may be given to the complainant to prosecute his case. Learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent/accused having received the noticed, did not choose to appear and submit any objections. 5. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would submit that the Court may pass appropriate Orders. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the impugned judgment would show that the matter is coming up for execution of Non- Bailable Warrant on payment of process that was not paid. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, to give a fair opportunity to the Complainant to prosecute his case, the appeal is allowed. 7. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of the case according to law. The impugned Order is set aside. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 23.04.2025 UPS 4 Dr.VJPJ, Crl.A.No. 443 of 2024 05 HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Crl.A.No.443 of 2024 Dt.23.04.2025 UPS