THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.252 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed against the order of dismissal of complaint by the XV-Additional Judge-cum-XIV Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.532 of 2009 dated 04.08.2010. The impugned order reads as under: “Accused is present. Complainant is absent, no representation till 01.20 P.M. The complainant has not attended this Court in the previous adjournments also. Case is coming up for trial. Hence, in these circumstances, complaint is dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C.” Learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant contended that the absence of the complainant was neither willful nor intentional. He also submitted that the Counsel, who is representing the case on behalf of the complainant - company, did not inform about the date of adjournment and the stage of the case and, therefore, the complainant- company could not represent its case on that day. The learned Counsel for the appellant-complainant has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in ASSOCIATED CEMENT CO., LTD., V. KESHVANAND [1], wherein it was held that if the presence of the complainant was essential on that day, the Magistrate was right in dismissing the complaint when he was absent, but he is not justified in dismissing the complaint when his presence was not essential. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the case has to be decided on merits instead of dismissing the same on some technicalities. Hence, the impugned order could not have been passed which is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed at the stage of admission and the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law. _______________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 15-02-2011 Gsn. [1] 1998 (1) ALD (CRL) 374 (SC)