4 s*. ' i s IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1325 OF 2024 Revision filed under Section 438 & 442 of B.N.S.S and Under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C, aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed in C.A.No.108 of 2018 on the file of the court of Judge, Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole, consequently direct the lower appellate court to give opportunity to the petitioner and disposal of the same in accordance with law. Between: Swarna Mallikarjuna Prasad, S/o.Siva Rama Krishnaiah Aged 51 years, Hindu, R/o.Gollapalem, C/o.M/s.Angos Hostel for Women, Chirala, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Petitioner / Appellant / Accused AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. ...Respondent 2. Chintalapudi Sankar Rao S/o.Poornachandar Rao Aged 46 Years, Hindu, R/o.D.No. 13-2-4/1, Besides Old Telegram Office, Chirala Mandal, Prakasam District. ...Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010577502024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1325/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Swarna Mallikarjuna Prasad AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner; 1 .NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: w 2 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case was filed by the petitioner herein/ accused against the Judgment, dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole. 2. The respondent herein/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner/accused before the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chirala for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Nl Act’) and the said complaint was numbered as Calendar Case No.444 of 2012. Learned Magistrate conducted full- fledged trial and after completion of 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 ‘CrPC’) 18.04.2018 and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months for the offence punishable under Section 138oftheNI Act. on 3. Aggrieved by the said Judgment, dated 18.04.2018, the petitioner herein/accused preferred appeal before the learned Judge, Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole vide Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2018. Learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said Criminal Appeal for default, vide Judgment dated 20.12.2023, which reads as follows: 6 3 “Appellant and respondent called absent. No representation even though the matter is posted on condition. Since condition not complied, the appeal is dismissed for default.” Against the said dismissal judgment passed by the learned Appellate Judge, the appellant therein i.e. petitioner herein, who is accused in C.C.No.444 of 2012 before the trial Court, preferred 4. the present Criminal Revision Case. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/accused 5. contended that a criminal case shall not be decided against the accused even in the absence of his counsel, and the accused in a criminal case shall not suffer on the fault of his counsel and in such circumstance, the Court shall appoint another counsel as Amicus Curiae to defend the accused. Heard. Perused the record. 6. 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 20.12.2023 and as the condition was not complied, learned Appellate 7. Judge dismissed the appeal for default. 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 8. 4 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. 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.” 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment. Criminal Revision Case No.1020 of 2019 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. ^ 2002 (7) see 726. 6 5 Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and 11. the Judgment, dated 20.12.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2018 by the learned Judge, Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole, is set aside and Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 2018 is restored to file. The learned Appellate Judge is directed to dispose of the Criminal Appeal within a period of one (01) year from the date of receipt of copy of the order/judgment. 12. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any. pending in this Criminal Revision Case shall stand closed. Sd/- V DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Family Court, Prakasam at Ongole (with records)(BY RPAD) 1. The District and Sessions Division at Ongole(with records) 2. The Additional Civil Qunior Division) Judge at Chirala (with records) 3. One CC to Sri. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. 5. 6. 7. Three CD Copies PR vna 9% HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.1325 of 2024 15 FEB 2025 ^ . Current Section ALLOWING THE CRLRC