IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1775 OF 2009 Between: The Food Inspector, Division – III, Mahabubnagar District, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND M. Balakrishna & 2 others ..... Accused/Respondents The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1775 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: The Food Inspector, Division - III, Mahabubnagar, filed the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (4) (5) & (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), challenging the judgment, dated 17.11.2006, in C.C.No.201 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool, whereunder and whereby the complaint was dismissed as there was no representation on behalf of the complainant and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/Accused Nos.1 to 3 discharged under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. 2. The complaint was lodged in the year 2002. Even though four years have been elapsed, the prosecution did not proceed with the trial. On 17.11.2006, the complainant was absent, there was no representation on behalf of the complainant and Accused Nos.1 to 3 were present. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed. Even thereafter, the complainant was not diligent to file the Appeal before this Court immediately. Thereafter, more than two years later, the appeal is filed with a delay condonation petition. Therefore, from the conduct of the appellant/complainant, it is clear that the complainant was not diligent in prosecuting the case. When the matter was pending before the trial Court, for a period of four years, the complainant had not taken any steps to proceed with the trial. He kept quiet for about two years. In the grounds of appeal also, no reason is assigned for the absence of the complainant on 17.11.2006. Similarly, there was no representation on behalf of the complainant on that day. Therefore, the trial Court had no other go, but to dismiss the complaint and to acquit the accused under Section 256 (1) Cr.P.C. and the said order does not call for any interference by this Court. There are absolutely no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the same. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment, dated 17.11.2006, in C.C.No.201 of 2002, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 22nd December, 2009 KL