IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Date:________________ PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1617 OF 2008 Between: Komi Subbaiah ..... PETITIONER/ACCUSED And M/s.I.K.F.Finance Limited, rep.by its Director Ch.V.Ramarao and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1617 OF 2008 ORDER: The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner - accused against the Order dated 17.09.2008 in Crl.R.P. No.57 of 2007 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, by which, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada in C.C.No.418 of 2005 dated 20.03.2005, thereby restored C.C.No.418 of 2005 filed by the first respondent herein under Section 138 r/w.142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘the N.I. Act’) against the revision petitioner. 2. This Court, while admitting this revision case, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.418 of 2005 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. To vacate the said order of this Court, the first respondent filed Criminal R.C.M.P. No.3115 of 2010 and when the same came up for hearing, at the request of both sides, the revision itself is taken up for disposal. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the revision petitioner - accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. 142 of the N.I. Act on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, stating that at the request of the revision petitioner - accused, it arranged hire purchase finance facility for purchase of six lorries and in that connection, the accused has executed six hire purchase agreements in favour of the first respondent - complainant, but he committed default in payment of agreed monthly installments from the beginning; that thereafter, the revision petitioner - accused settled the account with the first respondent -complainant and accordingly issued a cheque bearing No.347426, dated 08.04.2005 for Rs.24,52,000/- drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Labbipet, Vijayawada; that when the said cheque was sent for encashment, the same was dishonoured with an endorsement “funds insufficient” and that after complying with the requirements as contemplated under the provisions of the N.I. Act, the first respondent - complainant filed the complaint. 4. The trial Court has taken the complaint on file in C.C. No.418 of 2005 after recording the sworn statement of the complainant and issued NBWs against the revision petitioner - accused and directed to issue notices under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. by way of publication, by order dated 18.12.2006. On 05.02.2007, the trial Court taken the matter and observed that the complainant not paid batta and not complied with the order dated 18.12.2006 and adjourned the matter, directing the complainant to publish notices under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. against the accused on payment of batta and publish the same in Andhra Jyothi daily main newspaper on or before 19.02.2007. Again the matter was taken on 20.03.2007 and when the matter was called, the complainant absent and as the complainant failed to comply with the conditional order dated 05.02.2007 and not filed proof the publication, the trial Court dismissed the complaint under Sec.204(4) of Cr.P.C. and acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed revision in CRl.R.P. No.57 of 2007 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Vijayawada. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the said revision petition by order dated 17-09-2008, holding that having condoned the absence of the complainant, the learned Magistrate instead of dismissing the complaint ought to have granted some more time to the complainant to publish the said notices in the newspaper once again. 6. Against the order dated 17-09-2008, the accused filed this Criminal Revision Case, contending that the trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 204(4) of Cr.P.C. for non- compliance of the Court order; that against the said order, the complainant has to file an appeal, but not a revision and that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge ought to have dismissed the criminal revision petition and erred in declaring that the order of the trial Court is not on merits. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this revision? 9. The trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to comply with the directions of the Court and failed to publish notices under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. But, in fact, the publication was made in the District edition of Andhra Jyothi, instead of in the main edition as ordered by the trial Court, and hence the complainant could not file the same before the trial Court. In fact, the matter was posted to 19.03.2007 from 05.02.2007. As the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted to 20.03.2007. As the complainant has no knowledge of the posting of the matter on 20.03.2007, he could not attend the Court on 20.03.2007 and his counsel filed a petition seeking condonation of absence of the complainant. The trial Court having condoned the absence of the complainant dismissed the complaint, without granting any time to the complainant for publication of notices. The complainant could not bring to the notice of the trial Court the fact of publication of notices in District edition of Andhra Jyothi, instead of main edition, as he did not appear before the trial Court on 20.03.2007. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge has rightly allowed the revision petition, while setting aside the order of the trial Court holding that the trial Court ought to have granted some more time to the complainant to publish the notices under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C, and this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity with the findings of the Court of the Sessions: Metropolitan Division, Vijayawada, and as such, there are no merits in the Criminal Revision Case and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions filed in this Criminal Revision Case, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J Date:______________ Dsr/Stp