APHC010423742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE Between: Aluru Srinivasa Reddy, Dhota Harish and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the docket dated 26.07.2024, passed in C.C.No.1 Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile, Nellore. 2. A complaint has been filed respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 190 of Cr.P.C. The said complaint was dismissed for default of a docket order, dated 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 979 OF 2024 AND Dhota Harish and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the docket , passed in C.C.No.1955 of 2020 by the learned Magistrate of I Class, Special Mobile, Nellore. 2. A complaint has been filed by the petitioner as against the under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with The said complaint was dismissed for default dated 26.07.2024, which reads thus. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3327] MONDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY 2024 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the docket order, learned Judicial as against the 1st under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with The said complaint was dismissed for default, by way “Complainant called absent. No representation. Hence dismissed for default.” 3. Against the said order, the present Criminal Revision Case came to be filed by the petitioner/ complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that the petitioner was suffering from post Covid-19 symptoms and taking treatment in KIMS Hospital, Nellore and non-appearance of the petitioner/complainant before the lower Court is neither wilfull nor deliberate, but for the reason stated above. He further submits that the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint for absence of the complainant on one day. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Azeem Vs.A. Venkatesh and another1, 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 complainant on one day and refusing to restore the complaint when sufficient cause for the absence was shown by the complainant” 6. 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. Further, the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for his absence. 7. In view of the above precedent, the impugned order, dated 26.07.2024, passed in C.C.No.1955 of 2020 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile, Nellore, is set aside. C.C.No.1955 of 2020 is 1 (2002) 7 SCC 726 restored to the file of the learned Magistrate for disposal of the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 8. The Criminal Revision Case, is accordingly, allowed. 9. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 20.01.2025 KK THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 979 OF 2024 20.01.2025 KK