HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1698 OF 2009. DATED 21ST JANUARY, 2010. BETWEEN V.Madhusudhan Reddy ….Appellant and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Public Prosecutor And anr … Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1698 OF 2009. JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the docket Order, dated 26.8.2009, passed in C.C.No. 1765 of 2007, on the ﬁle of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, whereunder and whereby the private complaint ﬁled by the appellant under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed for default. 2. This Court while ordering notice before admission on 02.12.2009, permitted the learned Counsel for the appellant to take out personal notice to Respondent No.2 by registered post with acknowledgement due and ﬁle proof of service. Thereafter, again on 23.12.2009 fresh notice was ordered to Respondent No.2 and counsel was also permitted to take out fresh notice to Respondent No.2. However, as seen from the endorsement on the postal cover, the addressee/second respondent refused to receive the notice of this appeal and hence the same is deemed to have been served. 3. As seen from the impugned order, it is clear that when the case was posted on 26.8.2009 for hearing, the complainant remained absent, and hence, the complaint was dismissed for default. 4. On 26.8.2009, the learned Magistrate listed C.C.No. 1765 of 2007 at Sl.No.22 in the cause list after the calendar cases and therefore the Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/complainant could not come to the Court under the impression that his case would be called only after completing the calendar cases. But the private complaint cases were called in the ﬁrst instance and therefore he could not reach the Court when the matter was called and hence, the complaint was dismissed for default. The case of the appellant/ complainant is that his absence on that day was neither wilful nor wanton. Therefore, the appellant/ complainant should be given one more opportunity to prosecute his case as his absence was not intentional. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the order under appeal and the lower Court is directed to give one more opportunity to the appellant/complainant to prosecute his case. --------------------------------- JUSTICE K.C. BHANU DATED 21ST JANUARY, 2010. Msnr.