THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 of 2011 BETWEEEN: Sunkara Surya Prakasarao … Appellant AND 1. The State of A.P. & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 of 2011 JUDGMENT: Complaint of the appellant in CC.No.656 of 2005 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed by the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Rajahmundry on 26.06.2008. As against the said order, the complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.119 of 2008 before the Sessions Court. The Principal Sessions Judge by order dated 10.02.2009, dismissed the said revision petition holding that the revision petition is not maintainable and that remedy of the petitioner was to file an appeal before this Court. Therefore, the complainant approached this Court with this appeal. 2. The appellant’s counsel pleaded for another opportunity to the complainant to pursue his matter in the lower Court. The case in the lower Court was filed in the year 2005. For three long years, the case could not be disposed of by the Magistrate. The complainant was absent on 25.02.2008, 25.04.2008, 12.06.2008 and again on 26.06.2008 continuously. On 12.06.2008, the Magistrate passed conditional order to the effect that if the complainant is absent on the next date of adjournment, further step by way of disposal of the complaint for default will follow. Inspite of it, the complainant was absent on 26.06.2008. On no occasion of the complainant’s absence, a petition is filed for condoning his absence under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Inspite of it, the Magistrate was kind enough to adjourn the case. Even though affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief is stated to have been filed on 03.01.2008, on no further occasion, the complainant was present for his cross-examination. The Magistrate had given long rope to the complainant before resorting to dismissal of the complaint for default. There was no justification for the absence of the complainant or for the absence of the complainant’s counsel in the lower Court and for not filing any petition to condone absence of the complainant on each date of adjournment of the case. Simply because the offence is one under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a criminal case cannot be viewed as a civil matter. There are no grounds either on facts or in law to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate. The order passed by the Magistrate is legal and justified. 3. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 13.04.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.165 of 2011 DATED: 13.04.2011 ysk