IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 70 OF 2025 Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 of BNSS Act, 2023 against the judgment, dt.04-02-2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2016 on the file of the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, which dismissed by confirming the judgment of conviction of the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. 842 of 2015 on the file of learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Vijayawada, dt.07-12-2016. Between: Kondimoyina Mahendra, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o Flat No. 51, Hyderabad Road, Nalgonda District. ...Petitioner/Appellant AND 1. Kunapareddy Ramesh Babu, (Complainant) S/o Narayana Rao, Aged about 60 years, R/o D.No.2-17/1, Rajula Bazar, Behind Janitha Enclave, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondents/Respondents r lA NO: 2 OF 2Q2fi Petition under Section 438(1) of BNSS Act praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may graciously be pleased to Suspend the and its operation of the judgment dated 07-12-2016 passed in C.C. No. 842 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, as confirmed by the order dated 04-02-2022 sentence passed in Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 2016 on the file of the learned XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, during the pendency of the Criminal Revision Case before this Hon’ble Court and Grant bail to the Petitioner by directing his release on bail. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Ravi Teja Dommeti Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None Appeared Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER f APHC010000902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 70/2025 Between: Kondimoyina Mahendra ...PETITIONER AND Kunapareddy Ramesh Babu and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.RAVI TEJA DOMMETI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 2. The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioner herein/ accused against the Judgment, dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.406/2016 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. respondent herein/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Nl Act’) 2 and the said complaint was taken on file as Calendar Case No.842/2015. After full-fledged trial, and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, learned Magistrate found the petitioner herein/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act and convicted him under Section 255 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘Cr.P.C’) on 07.12.2016 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of eighteen (18) months and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Nl Act. 3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, dated 07.12.2016, the petitioner herein/accused preferred appeal before the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada vide Criminal Appeal No.406/2016. The Appellate Judge dismissed the said Criminal Appeal for default, vide Judgment dated 04.02.2022, and the operative portion of which reads as follows: "No representation for both sides, counsel Sri G.V.R. reported no instructions for appellant. Appellant is absent. Hence appeal is dismissed for default. Judgment in Calendar Case (C.C.) passed by the trial Court is confirmed. ” Appellant 4. Against the said dismissal judgment passed by the Appellate Judge, the appellant therein i.e. petitioner herein, who is accused in C.C.No.842/2015 before the trial Court, preferred the present Criminal Revision Case. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused contended that a criminal case shall not be decided against the accused even in his absence r 3 and the accused in a criminal case cannot be made to suffer for the fault of his counsel. 6. Heard. Perused the record. 7. A perusal of the grounds of Revision, the petitioner did not state the reason as to why he did not appear before the Court on 04.12.2022 and as the condition was not complied, the Appellate Judge dismissed the appeal for default. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Court has to adjourn the appeal if the petitioner herein/accused or his counsel is absent and the appeal has to be disposed of on merits, but the Appellate Court is not expected to straightaway dismiss the appeal for default. He placed strong reliance on the proposition of law laid down in Sebastin Princess vs. M.Somasundaram', wherein the High Court of Judicature at Madras at paragraph No.15 held as under; The law culled out from the above discussion is that the High Court or the Appellate Court, cannot discuss the appeal for default or for non-prosecution, without examining the case on merits. Though the court is not bound to adjourn the matter if the appellant or his counsel is absent, the Appellate Court can dispose of the appeal on merits after perusing the records and judgment of the Trial court without appointing any learned counsel as Amicus Curiae. If the accused is in jail, it would be proper for the Appellate Court, to adjourn the case and fix the date for facilitating the appearance of the accused and if his lawyer is not present and if the lawyer is absent, the appellate court should deem it appropriate to appoint a lawyer for the appellant and nothing in law prevents the Court from doing so. ” 15. \ \ Criminal Revision Case No.1020 of 2019 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Mohd. Azeem V. A. Venkatesh^, observed thus; 9. “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. ” In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this 10. Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the 11. Judgment, dated 04.02.2022 passed in Criminal Appeal No.406/2016 by the learned XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.406/2016 is restored to file. The Appellate Judge is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal on merits in accordance with law within a period of one (01) year from the date of receipt of copy of the order. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. ^2002(7) see 726 Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEeTION OFFieER //TRUE eOPY// To, 1. The XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District.(with records if any) 2. The I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District, (with records if any) 3. One CC to Sri Ravi Teja Dommeti Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati [OUT] 5. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 6. Three CD Copies 1 SAM HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.70 of 2025 O F' 15 FEB 2023 .70 =c o Currsni Section . ^ ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE