IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.196 OF 2010 Between: B. Shivarami Reddy ..... Appellant/Complainant AND 1. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondent 2. Ch.Sastry ..... Respondent/Accused The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEALNo.196 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), is directed against the order, dated 23.05.2007, in C.C.No.913 of 2006, on the file of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the complaint was dismissed for default. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is stated by the appellant that his presence was not necessary and the trial Court ought to have adjourned the case to further date. 4. As seen from the impugned order, dated 23.05.2007, it is clear that on 23.05.2007, the complainant was absent and there was no representation. Therefore, complaint was dismissed for default. The trial Court ought to have given one more opportunity to adduce further evidence. 5. It seems that the complaint was dismissed during call work as there was no representation. It is not a case where the absence of the complainant on 23.05.2007 is wanton, or willful, or deliberate. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the complainant to prosecute the case. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 23.05.2007, is set aside. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed restoring the case to its original file and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 18th January, 2010 KL