THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 835 of 2006. JUDGEMENT Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. There is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. This appeal is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No. 795 of 2002 under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant/appellant was called absent on the date when the matter was posted for trial. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the complainant wrongly noted the date of hearing and therefore he could be present on 9.11.2005 when the matter was posted for trial. The order of the learned trial court shows that the accused was also not present on 9.11.2005. However, the absence of the complainant on the given date seems to be not willful or intentional. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Order dt. 9.11.2005 of the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad in C.C.No. 795 of 2002 dismissing the complaint under Section 256 Cr.P.C. is set aside. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 05.08.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 835 of 2006. JUDGEMENT DT. 05.08.2011.