IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.526 OF 2008 Between: Adapa Chiranjeevi ..... Appellant AND 1. Guduru Vishwanath Shastri 2. Kiran 3. Valluripalli Ramesh 4. T. Veeraghava Reddy 5. The State of A.P. Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, Hyderabad. ..... Respondents The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal under Section 378 (4) of Cr.P.C., 1973, is directed against the order, dated 30.01.2008, in C.C.No.1526 of 2002, on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the complaint filed under Section 63 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, was dismissed under Section 256 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the complainant was absent for the last three adjournments and similarly, on the day when it was called for hearing. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there was a stay of all further proceedings in Crl.P.No.2713 of 2003 from the year 2003 to 2006 and thereafter, due to matrimonial disputes, the appellant was out of Hyderabad and therefore, he prays to set aside the dismissal order, dated 30.01.2008. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as the appellant was a party to the criminal petition, he should be diligent in prosecuting the case, and that as he was absent for four adjournments, the trial Court rightly dismissed the same and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. 4. On 30.01.2008, the complainant was absent and there was no representation on his behalf. The reason for the absence of the complainant was that he was out of station for more than three months due to matrimonial disputes between himself and his wife, that the stay granted by this Court in Crl.P.No.2713 of 2003 was in operation from the year 2003 to 2006 and therefore, the appellant was under the impression that the stay was continuing, and hence, he could not attend the Court, that there was a communication gap between him and his counsel. 5. It is not known whether the presence of the complainant is absolutely necessary on all the occasions so as to proceed further. It seems that there was a communication gap between the appellant and his counsel. The absence of complainant was not shown to be wanton or intentional. 6. As seen from the impugned order, dated 30.01.2008, the appellant was absent for about four adjournments. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the appellant to substantiate his case. Hence, the impugned order, dated 30.01.2008, is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original file and the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. ______________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: 24th August, 2009 KL