APHC010110212009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1138 OF 2009 Appeal under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C 31-03-2009 passed in C.C.No.21 of 2002 First Class Magistrate, Proddatur, Kadapa District. Between: REDDY against the Order dated on the file of the I Additional Judicial Sri Balaganapathy Cotton Company, A Registered firm its Partner J.Rama Subbaiah, S/o.J.P.Narayana Hindu, Business, D.No.7/14 Kadapa District. represented by aged about 58 years, 16 Korrapadu Road, Proddatur Town ...appellant/complainant AND 1. Arvind Textiles, Registered D.Kanagaraj, S.F.No.325, Kovai Annur-641653, Tamil Nadu State. D.Kanagaraj, S/o.S.Desappan Gouder Managing Partner of Aravind Textiles 641 653, Tamil Nadu State. Firm, represented by its Partner, Road, Marappa Mudaliyar Colony, 2. aged about 38 years, R/o.228 D Vovai Road, Annur - 3. R.Ramesh, S/o.Rangaswamy, aged about 39 years, Partner in Aravind Textiles, C/o.Hotel Rajaram, Main Road, Annur-641653, Tamil Nadu State. ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 to 3 The State of A.P., rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati. 4. ...RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 1 -3 Counsel for Appellant: SRI L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Counsel for Respondent No.3 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for Respondent No.4 : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: APHC010110212009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3327] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1138/2009 Between: 1.SRI BALAGANAPATHY COTTON COMPANY REP.BY J.RAMA SUBBAIAH, PARTNER-J.RAMA SUBBAIAH, S/O.J.P.NARAYANA KORRAPADU ROAD, PRADDATUR TOWN BUSINESS D.NO.7/14, 16 ...APPELLANT AND 1.ARVIND TEXTILES REP BY D KANAGARAJ AND 3 OTHERS, S.F.N0.325, KOVAI ROAD, MARAPPA MUDALIYAR COLONY, ANNUR-641653, 2.D KANAGARAJ, S/O.S.DESAPPAN GOUDER MANAGING PARTNER OF ARAVIND TEXTILES R/0.228 D VOVAI ROAD, ANNUR - 641 653. TAMILNADU STATE. 3.R RAMESH, S/O.RANGASWAMY PARTNER IN ARAVIND TEXTILES C/O.HOTEL RAJARAM, MAIN ROAD, ANNUR- 641653 4.THE STATE OF A P, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Appeal and consequently set aside the order dated 31-03-2008 passed in C.C.No.21/2002 on the file of the I Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate, Proddatur, Kadapa district. Counsel for the Appellant: 1.LJVEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) 2 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the docket order, dated 31.03.2009, passed in CC No.21 of 2002 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Proddatur. I 2. The appellant herein filed a complaint, under Sections 138, 139, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein and the same was taken on file as CC No.21 of 2002. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said CC for default, by the impugned order dated 31.03.2009, which reads as follows. “Complainant absent. No representation on behalf of the complainant and batta not paid. Complaint dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Accused is acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C.” 3. Against the said order passed by the learned Magistrate, the appellant herein filed the present Criminal Appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the appellant/complainant was not well during the relevant period and because of the said reason he could not attend the 4. case hearing on 31.03.2009. He further contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that warrants are pending against the 3 accused, as such the presence of the complainant was not essential on that date. 5. Heard. Perused the record. A perusal of the impugned docket order goes to show that 6. the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused only for absence of the complainant on one day. It is submitted that as the appellant was not well on 31.03.2009, he could not attend the Court on that day. The reason given by the appellant for his absence on 31.03.2009 is only due to ill-health and the same is found to be a genuine one. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Mohd. Azeem v. A. Venkatesh\ observed 7. thus. “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 8. case, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order. 2002 (7) see 726 f 4 A 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the docket order, dated 31.03.2009, passed in CC No.21 of 2002 by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur, is set aside and CC No.21 of 2002 is restored to file. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial of the case after issuance of formal notices to both the parties. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. 10. SDI- S.V.S.R.MURTHY JOINT REGISTRAR pr 3^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Kadapa District. (With records) One CC to Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CC's to the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Amaravati [OUT] The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV Proddatur, YSR 2. 3. Pradesh at 4. TAC HIGH COURT DATE 0:26/06/2025 a JUDGMENT CRLA NO. 1138 OF 2009 ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL