IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.NO : 1879 OF 2002 Between: Pasumarthi Gopalakrishna ..... PETITIONER AND Gadamsetti Subbaramaiah and another. .....RESPONDENT(S) HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.R.C.No. 1879 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This revision case is directed against the order dated 20-09-2002 in C.C.No.810 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru, whereby, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the process fee was not paid. 2. Apparently, the petitioner filed the complaint stating that the 1st respondent issued a cheque in his favour for an amount of Rs.25,000/- and on presentation of it, the same was bounced. Hence, he filed a complaint against the 1st respondent in C.C.No.810 of 2001 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. As the notice issued by this Court was not served on the respondent, on 22-07-2010, this Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out personal notice to the respondent and accordingly, notice was sent to the respondent, and he also filed proof of service. As per the acknowledgment, the notice sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner was served on the respondent on 30th July 2010. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Public prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the material. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, on 20-09-2002, the petitioner was ready to pay the process fee, but the Court below simply dismissed the complaint. Therefore, the petitioner may be given an opportunity to pay the process fee. 6. As the petitioner was able to express his willingness to pay the process fee, the impugned order dated 20-09-2002 is set aside and consequently, C.C.No.810 of 2001 is restored to its file, and on restoration of it, the petitioner shall pay the process fee, forthwith. 7. With the aforementioned direction, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. ___________________ 12th August 2010 KVR