HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.281 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30/09/2009 in C.C.No.988 of 2006, whereby the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant on the ground that he was absent. The brief facts of the case are that there are business transactions between the appellant and the respondent, and in that connection, the respondent issued a cheque to the appellant for an amount of Rs.4 lakhs, and on presentation, the same was dishonoured. After following the procedure contemplated under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for brevity ‘the Act’), a complaint was filed, and the same was numbered as C.C.No.988 of 2006. The accused/respondent, on being served with notice, contested the matter, but on 30/09/2009, as stated supra, the appellant’s complaint was dismissed on the ground that the appellant was absent. Even though notice has been served on the respondent/accused, he has not chosen to put in his appearance either in person or through his counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. The order impugned reads as follows: “Complainant absent. Accused present. No representation. Await upto 12:45 PM and called for the second time. Hence, case against accused is acquitted under Section 256 Cr.P.C.” According to the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant, the complainant could not be present in the trial Court when the matter was taken up for the reason that he was held up in traffic jam. The said reason for the absence of the complainant appears to be correct. Further, the cheque was issued for a substantial amount. In my considered view, once the complainant is absent and no representation is made on his behalf, the trial Court ought to have given the complainant an opportunity to prosecute the case. Hence, it cannot be said that the appellant is not diligent enough in getting the matter prosecuted. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed at the stage of admission and C.C.No.988 of 2006 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is restored to file. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J 26th March, 2010 SKM