1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 09.09.2011 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.R.C.(MD).No.751 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 to 3 of 2011 P.Andavar ... Petitioner Vs. R.Sundaresan ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the order of dismissal passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Periyakulam in C.A.No.3 of 2011 dated 27.05.2011, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in S.T.C.No.5659 of 2007 dated 25.11.2010 sentencing the petitioner to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. For Petitioner : M/s. A.K.Manickam O R D E R This Criminal Revision is preferred against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, (FTC), Periyakulam in C.A.No.3 of 2011, dated 27.05.2011, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam in S.T.C.No.5659 of 2007, dated 25.11.2010. 2. The petitioner is accused in S.T.C.No.5659 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam. He was convicted in the said case and he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.3 of 2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Periyakulam. The case was posted for hearing on 27.05.2011. On that day, neither the appellant nor his counsel was present before the Court and hence, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal for 'non- prosecution'. Hence, this revision petition is preferred before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was suffering from viral fever for about two weeks and hence, he could not give proper instructions to his advocate and that is why, when the appeal was called in the Court, there was no representation on his behalf and that if he is accorded with another opportunity, he will co- operate the Court and assist the Court for further proceedings. 4. In view of the above said circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order of dismissal has to be set aside and the Court below is directed to dispose of the case on merits. 5. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal in C.A.No.3 of 2011, dated 27.05.2011 and the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 directed to restore the appeal to file and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. SD/- Assistant Registrar (T & P) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(C.S) To 1. The Additional District Judge, (FTC), Periyakulam. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. +1. CC to Mr.A.K.Manickam, Advocate, SR.No. 31055 akv Crl.R.C.(MD).No.751 of 2011 09.09.2011 TR :10.10.2011: 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/