IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1249 OF 2005. Between:- Guduri Sivayya .. Appellant/ Complainant. And Maddula Brahmaiah and another .. Respondents. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2005 passed in C.C.No.398 of 2000 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Palakol, West Godavari District wherein the accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant was not present either in person or by an Advocate. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the records. The appellant herein filed a complaint against respondent No.1 herein alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate and it was posted for enquiry after appearance of the accused. As seen from the docket proceedings of the Court below, the complainant was absent on certain occasions and the accused was absent on other occasions. Petitions were being filed to condone their respective absence on those days. Ultimately, when the matter stood posted to 07.03.2005, the complainant was absent and the accused was present and there is no representation on behalf of the complainant though the matter was passed over. Hence, the complaint was dismissed. The accused was acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the appellant was an old man and he was ill on that day and he informed the same to his counsel with a request to seek adjournment but unfortunately, the counsel could not attend the Court on account of personal inconvenience and as such, there is no representation before the Court, which resulted in the dismissal of the complaint and acquittal of the accused. The said plea is raised in the grounds of appeal also. In these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the appellant/complainant is a senior citizen and that on account of inconvenience of the learned counsel for the complainant that the matter went unrepresented and resulted in acquittal for which, the complainant cannot be directly held responsible, it is considered just and proper to give an opportunity for the complainant to pursue the matter and have the same disposed of on merits. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to state that in the event of the appellant/complainant not evincing interest in pursuing the mater, it is open to the learned Magistrate to pass appropriate orders without showing any further indulgence on the complaint. The appellant shall pay costs of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the respondent, before the complaint is taken up for enquiry by the Court below. The appeal is allowed accordingly. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Both parties shall appear before the Court below on 26.10.2009. Office is directed to communicate the copy of this order along with the lower court records to the Court below immediately. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th October, 2009 Note:- Issue C.C. within two days. B/O. AMD