IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, the 29th day of June, 2011 Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar Crl.R.C..No. 1356 of 2011 Between: Baba Lokenath Engg Centre and another …Petitioners and The State of AP and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR Crl.R.C..No. 1356 of 2011 Judgment Heard Sri T.P. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is preferred against the order of the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku, West Godvari District dismissing the application i.e., Crl.M.P.No. 2125 of 2011 in C.C.No.182 of 2011 on the file of his court by which the petitioners herein sought for dispensing with their presence before the trial court. The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in the said case and it is stated that the second petitioner i.e., the second accused is the proprietor of the first accused/first petitioner concern. The offence alleged in the calendar case is one punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned Magistrate has dismissed the request of the petitioners for dispensing with their attendance for the reasons recorded by him in the impugned order. The petitioners’ counsel now say that the petitioners have no objection for recording the evidence in their absence, further if possible they would also engage a local Advocate for representing them in the matter on all dates of hearing and therefore their presence should be dispensed with. In these circumstances the second petitioner is directed to file a fresh petition with his fresh affidavit stating before the trial court that he has no objection for recording the evidence in his absence or in the absence of his proprietary concern and that also he would, if possible, engage a local Advocate. It may be noted that engaging a local Advocate or the court insisting for a local Advocate may not be required by law, but this aspect shall be looked into by the trial court and after filing the petition, the trial court shall dispose of the same afresh. 4. This revision case is accordingly allowed at the admission stage and the petitioners are directed to move a fresh application for dispensing with their presence before the trial court in the above terms. However if there are other reasons, which may weigh against the petitioners, it shall be open for the trial court to consider them also. _____________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. June 29, 2011. *BVS Note: Furnish CC as early as possible. (BO) BVS.