HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1112 of 2009 DATE:14.06.2010 Between: Ravula Srinivasarao @ Srinu … Appellant And Anagani Bulli Babu and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1112 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed by the appellant-complainant against the judgment dated 04.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, in C.C.No.338 of 2007, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant-complainant filed C.C.No.338 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Manglagiri, against the 1st respondent herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Subsequently, as the complainant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf when the matter was taken up for hearing on 04.02.2009, the court below dismissed the complaint, by judgment, dated 04.02.2009, and acquitted the 1st respondent-accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-complainant filed this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that the appellant-complainant was absent before the court below only on one occasion i.e. on 4.2.2009 and previously he was regular in attending the court below. But however, without taking the said fact into consideration, the court below dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 4. When the appellant-complainant was called absent at the time of hearing the matter, the court below, instead of dismissing the complaint, should have adjourned the matter giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-complainant. In the light of the same and as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant appears to be reasonable and having regard to the fact that the complaint was filed against the 1st respondent-accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court is of the view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 04.02.2009 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, in C.C.No.338 of 2007, is set aside and the complaint is restored to file. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 11th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1112 of 2009 (Allowed) Date:11.06.2010 CBS