IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.740 OF 2003 Between: M. Kameswara Rao ..... Appellant/Complainant AND 1. D. Durga Prasad ..... Accused 2. The Sate of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal, under Section 378 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment, dated 31.03.2003, in Crl.A.No.47 of 2000, on the file of the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby the conviction and sentence recorded against the first respondent of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in the judgment dated 04.05.2000 in C.C.No.384 of 1999 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, were set aside. 2. The Criminal Appeal was admitted on 25.09.2003. Notice sent to the first respondent/accused on 29.09.2003 was returned unserved. Reminder has been issued to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on 19.04.2007 for furnishing the correct address of the first respondent/accused. Several opportunities were given by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to furnish the correct address of the first respondent/accused. Therefore, this Court passed conditional order dated 20.07.2009, directing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to furnish the correct address of the first respondent/accused by 10.08.2009, so that the office can send notice to him, failing which, the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed. The said conditional order has not been complied with by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Thereafter, to provide one more opportunity, this Court vide conditional order dated 08.09.2009, directed the learned counsel for the appellant to furnish correct address of first respondent/accused within four weeks. Thereafter also, three more adjournments were taken for the same purpose. Still the correct address has not been furnished. Accordingly, the docket proceeding, dated 08.09.2009, is given effect. In the absence of the first respondent/accused, the Criminal Appeal cannot be decided or determined. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for non- prosecution. _______________ (K.C. BHANU, J) Date: 1st December, 2009 KL