IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1388 OF 2010 Between: Mora Venkata Swamy Reddy … PETITIONER And Kondrakunta Purchandra Rao and another … RESPONDENTS This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1388 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. The petitioner/complainant seeks to question order, dated 21.12.2009, passed by the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Narasaraopet, in C.C.No.26 of 2003, dismissing the case under Section 204 (4) Cr.P.C. The complainant filed the case in the lower Court alleging offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the first respondent/accused. It is a very old case of the year 2003. On that date, the complainant was absent and there was no representation and warrant batta was not paid. Therefore, the lower Court passed over the matter till after lunch and again called the same at 04:30 P.M. In spite of it, none was present. Therefore, the lower Court had no other go except to dismiss the complaint. 2. Now the petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner aged about 80 years was taking treatment in a hospital at Hyderabad and that the petitioner instructed his advocate in the lower Court to file batta and to file petition to dispense with his appearance. The petitioner did not file any medical record to show that he was taking treatment for any ailment at Hyderabad. There is absolutely no explanation for absence of the complainant's advocate and for non-filing of petition to dispense with the petitioner's appearance and for non-filing of batta for warrant against the accused. No doubt, the presence of the complainant on that day may not be necessary. But, at the same time, he should have made arrangements for filing petition to dispense with his appearance on that day. There is default on the part of the complainant in each and every aspect. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to restore the case of the year 2003. 3. Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J August 03, 2010 MD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1388 OF 2010 August 03, 2010