THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINIAL APPEAL No.681 OF 2009 ORDER: 1 The complainant is the appellant and he questioned the order dated 21.05.2008 made in C.C.No.1748 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed on the ground that the complainant was absent. 2 Brief facts are that there were certain business transactions between the complainant and the accused during the course of which certain cheques have been issued and when the said cheques were presented the same were bounced and thereafter after following the procedure provided for under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the complainant filed the said complaint. As stated supra, when the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.05.2008 the complainant was absent and there was no representation and as such the complaint was dismissed. Now the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of adjournment prior to 21.05.2008 by mistake it was noted as 27.05.2008 instead of noting it as 21.05.2008 and as such the complainant was absent on 21.05.2008 and the same is neither wilful nor deliberate. The said explanation offered by the petitioner appears to be correct. The amounts involved in this case is more than Rs.6 lakhs and in my considered view nobody would take it so light when the amount is so high. Of course, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the case was instituted in the year 2005 and because of the complainant’s absence on some pretext or the other there was no progress in the case at all even after three years from the date of institution of the said complaint. But that cannot be a ground to hold that the complainant is not inclined in getting the matter prosecuted. 3 In the light of the above discussion, this Criminal Appeal is allowed, the said order dated 21.05.2008 passed by the court below is hereby set aside and the C.C.No.1748 of 2005 is restored to its file. As it is an old case of the year 2005, the court below is hereby directed to give utmost priority and decide the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. -------------- 11.03.2010 kvsn