1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.09.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU Crl.Apl.(MD) No.296 of 2011 RAJMONOHARAN S/O.DURAIRAJ P.S.K.NAGAR, RAJAPALAYAM, [THROUGH HIS POWER AGENT R.PADMANABAN] ...COMPLAINANT/APPELLANT VS V.SUNDARESAN ... ACCUSED/RESPONDENT Criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, (Fast Track Court), Srivilliputtur, dated 16.08.2011. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Venugopal JUDGMENT This Criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment passed in S.T.C.No.23 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, (Fast Track Court), Srivilliputtur, dated 16.08.2011. 2. The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.C.No.23 of 2011, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Srivilliputtur. When the case was posted on 16.08.2011, on account of the absence of the complainant, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint acquitting the accused. The following is the order challenged before this Court:- “Accused absent PFA. Complainant absent. No representation though the case posted for cross of P.W.1, he is not turned up, and this case is of the year of 2009. Since the attitude of P.W.1 is lethargic and the P.W.1 is not interested in conducting the case, this case is dismissed. As a result, the accused is hereby acquitted.' 3. When 'B' diary extract is perused by this Court, as many as on nine occasions, the accused was absent and no non-bailable warrant was issued by the Court below. Neither the absence of the accused was condoned by the Court below on petition. On 14.07.2011, 28.07.2011, 03.08.2011 and 08.08.2011, the accused was absent and the complainant was present. Even though the case was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 the accused was absent on the final date of hearing and hence, there could not be any progress in the case. Hence, the Court below should have adjourned the case to some other date. Even on 16.08.2011, i.e. on the date of passing of the order, there was no petition filed for condonation of absence of the accused. In these circumstances, it is desirable that the learned Judicial Magistrate should have adjourned the case to some other date. Hence, the order challenged before this Court is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly set aside. 4.In the result, this criminal revision is allowed directing the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Srivilliputtur to restore the case on file and proceed the same in accordance with law after affording amble opportunities to both parties. ssm Sd/- Assistant Registrar[CO] /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1I, FAST TRACK COURT, SRIVILLPUTTUR. +1 CC TO M/S.M.P.SENTHIL, ADVOCATE SR.NO.33033. CRL.APL.(MD)NO.296 OF 2011 DATED:23.09.2011 2P/3C RPB : 29.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/