HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.570 of 2010 DATE:13.04.2010 Between: M.V.R. Chandra Mohan … Appellant And The State of A.P., represented by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.570 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.08.2009, in C.F.R.No.886 of 2008, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant- complainant filed a private complaint (C.F.R.No.886 of 2008) before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, against respondents 2 & 3-accused for the offence punishable under Section 389 IPC. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 20.08.2009, as the complainant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf, the court below dismissed the complaint, by order, dated 20.08.2009, and acquitted respondents 2 and 3-accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-complainant preferred this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-complainant has submitted that on the date of hearing the complainant could not appear before the court below due to fever. The learned counsel further submitted that due to posting of several matters on the same day, he could not represent the case at the time of call work and also file a petition on behalf of the complainant for his absence and by the time he attended the court below, the learned Magistrate called the matter and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was called absent and there was no representation on his behalf. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal. 4. When the complainant and his counsel were called absent at the time of hearing the matter, the court below, instead of dismissing the complaint, should have adjourned the matter giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant. In the light of the same and as the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant- complainant appears to be reasonable, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order dated 20.08.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi, in C.F.R.No.886 of 2008, is set aside, and the complaint is restored to file. _______________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 13th April, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.570 of 2010 (Allowed) Date:13-04-2010 CBS