HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5271 OF 2006 Date: 19.01.2010 Between: Bayya Srenaiah ……Petitioner And: The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 4 others ……Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5271 OF 2006 ORDER: This petition is filed by the complainant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questing order dated 12.09.2006 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nalgonda in Criminal Revision Petition No.50 of 2006 by which that court dismissed the revision petition confirming order dated 20.03.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Devarakonda in C.C.No.57 of 2006 dismissing the private complaint for default. The petitioner filed private complaint before the Magistrate alleging offences punishable under Sections 500, 501 and 502 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondents 1 to 4 (A-1 to A-4). After recording sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate took the case on file and ordered issuance of summonses to A-1 to A-4. It appears that the complainant did not appear before the Magistrate subsequent to recording of sworn statement and also on 20.03.2006, on which date the case was dismissed for default by the Magistrate. The Magistrate gave three reasons for dismissal of the case, viz., 1) absence of the complainant, 2) reporting of the complainant’s advocate that the case may be dismissed, and 3) process fee is not paid. There is no dispute about absence of the complainant and non payment of process fee by the complainant. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner’s counsel might not have represented before the Magistrate to dismiss the case. It is further stated that the complainant’s advocate in the Magistrate Court is prepared to give an affidavit to the effect that he did not make such representation in the trial court. In my opinion, a belated affidavit of an advocate cannot overweigh recording of factual aspect by the Magistrate on case record. It is contended that the complainant could not be present before the trial court as he was held up in another case before the Joint Collector and that the revisional court did not consider this aspect, even though it was taken as a ground in memorandum of revision petition. The petitioner did not produce any material even before the revisional court to show that there was another case of the petitioner before the Joint Collector and that the said case was posted by the Joint Collector on 20.03.2006 and that the petitioner’s presence in that case was expected on that date and that in fact the petitioner appeared before the Joint Collector on that date and that his presence before the Joint Collector was recorded in any proceedings on that date. In the absence of any such material, a mere plea that he was held up elsewhere in some office, may not serve purpose of the petitioner. The revision court after considering all aspects of the case, came to right conclusion against the complainant. I am of the opinion that this petition as against revisional order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nalgonda would only amount to entertaining second revision petition by this Court, which is prohibited by law. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Date:19.01.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5271 OF 2006 Date:19.01.2010. Gk.