THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1712 of 2009 (Dated : 14-10-2009) Between:- G.Srinivas S/o G.Jaganmohan Rao, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o Plot No.233, JJ Colony, Kapra, Hydreabad. ….Petitioner A n d State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hydrabad. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1712 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.8.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3786 of 2009 in C.C.No.407 of 2008 on the file of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tenali, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 3. When the revision came up for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is prosecuted for the offence under Section 498-A IPC and because of his difficulty in appearing before the Court, he authorized Sri Ch.Micheal @ Pulla Rao as his special vakalat holder, and therefore, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C is not legal and proper. 5. On earlier occasion, NBW came to be issued against the petitioner for his non-appearance. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.1539 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C assailing the order dated 3.1.2009 passed in Crl.M.P.No.3064 of 2008 in Crl.M.P.No.2711 of 2008. The Criminal Petition came to be dismissed on 20.4.2009 directing the petitioner to appear before the Court without fail. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as follows:- “In the result, Criminal Petition is disposed of and the impugned order, dated 03-01-2009, is set aside and the non-bailable warrant is directed to be recalled. The trial Court is directed to issue summons for appearance of the petitioner-A1. Petitioner – A1 is directed to appear before the trial Court on the date fixed for his appearance without fail.” 6. A plain reading of the above referred order indicates that the petitioner on receipt of summons shall make his appearance without fail. The petitioner, without making his appearance chose to file an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C before the trial Court. The trial Court noticing the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.1539 of 2009 proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. So long as the order passed in Criminal Petition No.1539 of 2009 is not modified, dismissal of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C cannot be said to be irregular or illegal. 7. The Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.14-10-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Revision Case No.1712 of 2009 DATED : 14-10-2009