IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1787 OF 2001 Between: M/s. Mamidi Prakash ..... Petitioner/Complainant AND M/s. Teja Sai Traders & 3 others 5. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents/Accused The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the judgment, dated 02.09.2000, in C.C.No.251 of 1998, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby the Respondents/Accused Nos.1 to 4 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the Act”) and accordingly acquitted. 2. In the Appeal, the notices have not been taken to Respondent No.1, which is the firm, and to Respondent No.2, the person who issued the cheque, bearing No.138090, dated 10.06.1998, drawn on State Bank of India, Nizamabad Branch, for an amount of Rs.30,000/-. 3. The Criminal Appeal was admitted on 12.11.2001. Notices and reminders issued to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were returned unserved. Therefore, memos were issued to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on 23.03.2007 and 15.04.2008 to furnish the correct and full address of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, but he has not yet furnished. Thereafter, this Court by conditional order, dated 20.04.2009, directed the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to furnish the correct address of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and file proof of service within a period of four weeks so that the office can send notices to them, failing which, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed. The said conditional order has not been complied with by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Thereafter also, the case underwent several adjournments. Accordingly, the docket proceeding, dated 20.04.2009, has become final and has given effect. 4. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the partners of the firm. Admittedly, they have not issued the cheque in question. Unless the liability of the firm is determined, the question of liability of the partners does not arise. Therefore, in the absence of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the Appeal cannot be decided or determined. 5. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 14th December, 2009 KL