APHC010311332013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3605] THURSDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 960/2013 Between: 1. G.SREENIVASULA REDDY, S/O.SUNDARA RAMI REDDY R/O.GANDAVARAM VILLAGE, KODAVALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. ...APELLANT AND 1. GUDIMETLA MALLIKARJUNA RAO ANR, S/O.LATE KOTAIAH, R/O.BASAVAYAPALEM VILLAGE, KODAVALUR MANDAL, NELLORE DIST. 2. THE STATE OF A P THROUGH REP BY STATE P P, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD. ...RESPODENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set aside the Judgment of acquittal passed against the Respondent No.1/Appellant/accused u/s. 138 of N.I.Act passed by the Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-Cum-A Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge at Nellore in Crl.A.No.51 of 2012 dt.19.6.2013 and convict the respondent No.1/Appellant /Accused for u/s 138 of N.I.Act., and award compensation towards cheque amount in favour of the appellant/complaint and be please to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2013(CRLAMP 1183 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Spl. leave to the petitioner/appellant to prefer the appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PALLE SRIHARINATH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 960 OF 2013 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: 1.None appeared for the Appellant. On the last occasion also, none appeared for the Appellant. 2. The Court perused the record and it reveals that the Appeal was filed challenging for allowing of the Appeal by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore, wherein the Accused was acquitted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The Proceeding Sheets reveal that the Complainant could not serve the notice on the Respondent No.1/Accused for all these years despite opportunities. 4. The settled law is that the Criminal Appeals shall be disposed on merits (see Hon’ble Full Bench Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bani Singh and others vs State of U.P.1, (1996)4 SCC 720), but when the Appellant could not service on the Accused for all these years, this Court could not decide the Appeal on merits without giving him an opportunity to submit hearing. 5. Thus, this Court could not decide the Appeal on the impugned Judgment in the absence of service of notice on Respondent No.1/Accused. Thus, the Appeal is liable not only to be dismissed for non-prosecution by invoking inherent powers, but also to be held that the Appellant contributed to 1 (1996) 4 SCC 720 the long pendency of the Appeal for all these years by failing to pursue service of notice on the Accused. 6. Thus, the Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a sequel, the pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR Date : 03-09-2026 BMS/CHD