THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1792 of 2009 Date: 28.10.2009 Between: Nanduri Venu Gopala Raju. .. Petitioner/Respondent And Nanduri Rama Devi and another .. Respondents/Petitioners. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Criminal Revision Case No. 1792 of 2009 Judgment: This revision case has been filed challenging the order dated 07.10.2009 passed in Crl.M.P. No.248 of 2009 in M.C. No.150 of 2005 by the Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Court, at Vijayawada. The petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P. No.248 of 2009 in M.C. No. 150 of 2005, under Section 284 Cr.P.C, praying the Court below to appoint an advocate-commissioner to record the evidence of Dr. Satish Babu of Krishna Nursing Home, Khammam and Dr. usha Rani Anne of Usha Nursing Home, Huzurnagar Road, Kodad. The said petition was allowed, by order dated 05.08.2009, and Sri K. Suman, Advocate, Vijayawada, was appointed as advocate commissioner to record the evidence of the above referred doctors. It was directed that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.500/- besides traveling expenses of the commissioner and pay the same to the commissioner directly and also to pay traveling and incidental expenses to the first respondent herein and her counsel directly. It appears that the Commissioner represented to the Court that he is ready to execute the warrant, but the petitioner was not coming forward to bear the traveling expenses of the first respondent herein and her counsel. On such representation, the lower Court recalled the commission warrant, by impugned order dated 07.10.2009. Sri V. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner only sought some time for payment of expenses as awarded, but his request was not considered by the lower Court. The petitioner also seems to have filed a memo before the lower Court that he is ready to bear the traveling expenses of the first respondent herein (petitioner in M.C) and her counsel. The only point that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the impugned order is sustainable. Justice delayed is justice denied and similarly justice hurried is justice buried. As seen from the contents of the impugned order it is not clear whether the Court has enquired with the petitioner as to whether he was ready to bear the traveling expenses of the first respondent herein and her counsel. It appears that the principles of natural justice have been violated. The Court below ought to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the traveling expenses. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to deposit the traveling expenses of the first respondent herein (petitioner in MC), her counsel and also her mother within a period of 15 days from today, and on such deposit, the lower Court shall issue commission warrant to the Advocate Commissioner for executing the commission work as per the orders in Crl.M.P. No. 248 of 2009 in M.C. No.150 of 2005, dated 05.08.2009. Accordingly, the revision case is allowed. ______________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 28.10.2009 Note: Issue CC in three days (B/O) Nsr