Kolla Lokanadha Rao Vs Tatiparthi Venkata Reddy & the State of A.P.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAo'^'^^2^

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 85fi OF 2009

¶6

Revision filed under Sections 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., against the Order of the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Addanki, dated 03.03.2009 in CrI.M.P.No. 186 of 2009 in C.C.No.208 of 2007.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kdia Lokanadha Rao, S/o Venkata Swamy, J.P.Pangulur of J.P.Pangulur Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶9

...Petitioner/Complainant

¶10

AND

¶11

Tatiparthi Venkata Reddy, S/o Anji Reddy, Tatiparthivaripalem Inkallu Mandal, Prakasam District.

¶12

The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

¶13

...Respondents/Accused

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri G Vasantha Rayudu

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: K Someswara Kumar

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Public Prosecutor

¶17

The Court made the following:

¶18

/

¶19

'iJ

¶20

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶21

¶22

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.856 OF 2009

¶23

Between

¶24

KOLLA LOKANADHA RAO, S/0 VENKATA SWAMY, J.P. PANGULUR OF J.P.PANGULUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

Versus

¶27

TATIPARTI VENKATA REDDY, S/0. ANJI REDDY,

¶28

TATIPARTI VARIPALEM, INKALLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD.

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

¶31

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED

¶32

20.02.2025

¶33

2

¶34

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶35

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶36

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶37

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

¶38

y

¶39

Yes/No

¶40

Whether the copy of Judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals?

¶41

Yes/No

¶42

Whether His Lordship wish to see the

¶43

fair copy of the Judgment?

Yes/No

3

/

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856of2009 20/02/2025

¶48

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶49

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.856 OF 2009

¶50

% 20.02.2025

¶51

Between:

¶52

KOLLA LOKANADHA RAO, S/0 VENKATA SWAMY, J.P. PANTGULUR OF J.P.PANGULUR MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶53

...PETITIONER

¶54

Versus

¶55

TATIPARTI VENKATA REDDY, S/0. ANJI REDDY, TATIPARTI VARIPALEM, INKALLU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., AT HYDERABAD.

¶56

...RESPONDENT

¶57

! Counsel for the Petitioners : Ramakrishna Akurathi

¶58

Counsel for the Respondent : Sri K.Sandeep, Assistant^{PublicProsecutor}

¶59

< Gist:

¶60

Head Note:

¶61

4

¶62

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶63

? Cases referred;

¶64

1. 2007 CRI.L.J 2596

¶65

1. AIR 1979 SC 1360

¶66

1. 2000(1) BUR 37

¶67

5

¶68

$

¶69

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856of2009 20/02/2025

¶70

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

¶71

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 856/2009

¶72

ORDER:

¶73

The Revision has been preferred under Sections 397^and401ofCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’) challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate^{FirstClass,Addanki} in Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2009 in C.C.No.208 of 2007 dated 30.12.2008, whereby and whereunder the miscellaneous petition filed for^{restorationofC.C.No.208} of 2007 on to the file, was dismissed. 2. The revisionist being the complainant filed a complaint^underSection 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ for the alleged^{offenceunderSection138of} the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘the^Act’). It was the case of the revisionist that the respondent No.1/accused issued^{twochequesforan} amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/respectively, for discharge of legally enforceable debt. The learned Magistrate in^{thecourseoftheenquiry} having waited for several times for the presence of^{thecomplainant,ultimately,} on 30.12.2008, dismissed the complaint for want of the presence of the revisionist for default/non-prosecution of the complaint^{andtherespondent} No.1 was discharged under Section 249 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the revisionist had filed Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2009 before the learned Magistrate and the learned

¶74

6

¶75

Dr. YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.856 of2009 20/02/2025

¶76

Magistrate dismissed the miscellaneous petition. The relevant paras of the impugned order are beneficial to be extracted as under:

¶77

Heard and perused the record as well as the contents^ofthe petition. It could be seen from docket order of the^C.O.No.208of 2007 that since from the date of filing the complaint, the petitioner/defacto-complaint remained absent in attending^theCourt except on 13.04.2007 on which date his sworn statement was recorded by this Court. On 30.12.2008 there is no report^fromthe petitioner/defacto-complaint either personal or through^hiscounsel. In such circumstances, this Court dismissed the complaint^forthe default of the complainant and the accused was discharged^U/s.249 of Cr.P.C. At this juncture, the petitioner/defacto complainant filed this present petition seeking restoration of his case. It is the settled law that once the complaint was dismissed by the SubOordinate Criminal Courts it has become Functus Officio and there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to enable the sub ordinate Criminal Court to exercise inherent powers. As such, this Court has no jurisdiction or power to restore the complaint^andto review its own order. As such, the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 4. I agree with the finding of the judgment relied by the petitioner between Danvanti Mutual Funds Limited v/s. State of Haryana and another reported in 2007 Crl.L.J2596. In support if his plea but the factual matrix of the case in that petition and^{thecaseinhandare} not one and same as such, I am of the opinion that^{theabovecitation} is not applicable to the present case. Basing on the above all discussion this petition is dismissed. ”

¶78

Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the revisionist while reiterating the grounds of the revision argued that^{thelearnedTrialCourtfailed} to consider that the matter was coming for the examination^oftheaccused under Section 251 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ so the presence of the complainant was not necessary. The order of dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant is perverse and vitiated by illegalities. If the order passed by the

¶79

i

¶80

7

¶81

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶82

learned Magistrate is sustained, there will be miscarriage^{ofjustice,irreparable} loss and hardship to the revisionist.

¶83

It is further argued that the case was called on 30.12.2008,^onwhich date, the presence of the complainant was not necessary,^andwhen the accused was absent for his examination, the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint. The learned counsel for^{therevisionistreliedon} the decision in Danvanti Mutual Funds Limited v. State of Haryana^ and submitted that the learned Magistrate ought not to have dismissed the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant on the day when the case was coming for the examination of the revisionist under^Section251 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’

¶84

Per contra, Sri K.Sandeep, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that number of opportunities were given to the^{revisionist/complainant} to appear before the Court and represent the matter, whereas, the complainant had not evinced any interest in prosecution^{ofthecomplaint.The} learned Magistrate, had rightly dismissed the complaint^{underSection249of} ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ when the complainant had continuously,^{foronereasonorother,} not co-operated with the learned Magistrate in conducting^{thetrial.Therightto} speedy justice as enshrined under Article 21 of the^Constitution of India is quite applicable to the 1®* respondent/accused also.

¶85

2007 CRI.L.J 2596

¶86

8

¶87

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of2009 20/02/2025

¶88

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor further argued^{thattherevision} has been filed not challenging the order dated 30.12.2008 whereunder, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 249 of ‘the Cr.P.C, but an order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 03.03.2009 dismissing the petition filed by the revisionist for restoring the complaint on its file. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, eventually, submits^{thattherewasneither} perversity in the impugned order nor material irregularity, therefore, the revision has to be dismissed.

¶89

Thoughtful consideration is bestowed on the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both sides. I have perused^{theentirerecord.}

¶90

Now the point for consideration is:

¶91

“Whether the judgment in C.C.No.208 of 2017 dated 03.03.2009, passed by the learned Additional Judicial I class Magistrate, Addanki, is correct, legal, and proper with respect to its finding, sentence, or judgment, and there are any^material irregularities? And to what relief?”

¶92

As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutor,the} impugned order was an order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the restoration petition stating that the learned Magistrate had no power to restore the complaint and to review his own order. It is trite that the Courts administering criminal laws have no power to review^{itsorder,unliketheCivil} Courts exercising their powers conferred under Section¹⁵¹ of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Of course, the Criminal Courts have got limited power to

¶93

c

¶94

9

¶95

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of2009 20/02/2025

¶96

correct clerical and arithmetic errors that may occur in the judgments as per Sec 362 of ‘the Cr.P.C.

¶97

Against the order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the petition which was filed to review or restore the earlier order, the revision is not maintainable, as such the learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.186 of 2009. No revision was filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2008 passed under Section 249 of ‘the Cr.P.C’. There is no perversity or material error or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate.

¶98

It has to be further observed, as it is not out of place to mention, that the complainant is expected to be vigilant in prosecuting his case. The complainant for quite number of times was absent before the learned Magistrate and had not co-operated with the proceedings in the^trial. Further, the age of the accused as per the averments of the complaint filed under Section 190 read with 200 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ was shown as 50 years in the year of 2007. Now his age would be about 67 years. Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right of the 1®* respondent/accused as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. The alleged occurrence took place about 24 years ago. The Respondent No.1 has been facing mental agony and trauma of the protracted prosecution and suffered mental harassment for a long period of 24 years. The right to

¶99

10

¶100

Dr.YLR,J Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶101

speedy trial is a fundamental right as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussalnara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary^{StateofBihar^.This} right includes speedy disposal of appeals. In addition to the appeals, the right to a speedy trial also includes criminal revisions as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajdeo Sharma v. State of Bihar^. 14. Further, it is not out of context or place to mention^{thatthelearned} Magistrate, as seen from the docket proceedings, on several occasions mentioned that the revisionist, being the complainant, had not chosen to appear before him for prosecuting his complaint. The following are the instances, where the revisionist had not present, rather indiligent before the learned Magistrate:

¶102

“10.01.2007 Complainant absent, petition filed and^allowedfor recording sworn statement. Call on 07.02.2007. 22.02.2007 Complainant absent, petition filed and allowed, for recording sworn statement. Call on 13.03.2007. 13.03.2007 Complainant absent for sworn statement, call on 13.04.2007. 20.04.2007 Complainant absent call on 03.05.2007. 23.05.2007 Complainant absent, petition filed and allowed^callon 08.06.2007 08.06.2007 Complainant absent, P.O is on training the^case is reposted to 08.08.2007 08.08.2007 Complainant is absent, petition filed and allowed, perused the records, taken on file against the accused^forthe offence u/s.138 N.I.Act. Issue summons to the accused call on 19.09.2007.

¶103

^AIR 1979 SC 1360 ^ 2000(1) BUR 37

¶104

11

¶105

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶106

05.11.2007 Complainant absent, petition filed and allowed,^issue fresh summons to the correct address of the accused^callon 02.01.2008.

¶107

02.01.2008 S/s of accused by post returned unserved^ashewas not residing in the village presently and whereabouts^arenot known.

¶108

Accused called absent, complainant called absent, petition^filed and allowed issue fresh summons to the accused with^correct address call on 28.02.2008

¶109

11.06.2008 Complainant called absent, petition filed^andallowed. Summons returned unserved. Issue fresh notice through court and R.P on payment of process call on 11.07.2008 11.08.2008 Accused called absent, petition filed and^allowedSri V.A.R filed memo of appearance for accused call on^15.09.2008 15.09.2008 Complainant called absent, petition filed^andallowed, accused called present copies of documents furnished to accused call on 21.10.2008 for examination. 21.10.2008 Complainant called absent, petition under^Section 256 Cr.P.C filed and the same is allowed. Accused is present. Call on 30.12.2008.”

¶110

And, ultimately on 30.12.2008 also the complainant^wasabsent.No doubt, on 30.12.2008, when the case was coming for^examination of the accused under Section 251 of ‘the Cr.P.C.’ the accused was not present. Therefore, a petition on his behalf was filed and it^{wasallowed.Whereas,} there was neither representation on behalf of the complaint/revi^{sionistnorthe} complaint himself was present nor any application was filed seeking for condoning the absence of the complainant before the^{learnedMagistrate.} It is manifest from the record that the learned Magistrate, having waited for several months, was vexed with the callous attitude of the complainant and constrained to dismiss the complaint under section^{249of‘theCr.P.C.’}

¶111

12

¶112

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of2009 20/02/2025

¶113

It is relevant to mention the reasons assigned by the revisionist/complainant in the petition filed by him to review the order dated 30.12.2008. The relevant portion is extracted as under:

¶114

“It is submitted that the petitioner is complainant^{inthecase.The} case is posted today for examination of accused. My^Advocate entrusted the case to another advocate due to heavy work, he is not represented in call-work by mistakenly. After my^arrival I came to know the complaint dismissed and accused is discharged. I was present at the court premises and waiting for the case of my counsel for my appearance in Court. There are no willful latches on my part in not attending before^theHon’ble Court at the time of call-work”.

¶115

On a careful perusal of the above averments of the petition, it could easily be held that even if the counsel for the complainant^{beforethelearned} Trial Court was absent and he entrusted the matter to the another counsel, the complainant must have been cautious and vigilant, when^{thecasewascalled.} When the case was called, the complainant was absent.^{Severaltimesthis} had happened. Therefore, learned Magistrate had rightly dismissed the complaint under Section 249 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’ and discharged the 1 St respondent. Therefore, against an order passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the petition which was filed to review or^{restoretheearlierorder} this revision is not maintainable as the criminal Courts have no power to review or restore earlier orders. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the revisionist in Danvanti Mutual Funds Limited supra is not applicable to the case on hand as the revision is not filed challenging the order passed by

¶116

13

¶117

Dr.YLRJ Crl.R.C.No.856 of 2009 20/02/2025

¶118

I

¶119

the learned Magistrate under Section 249 of ‘the Cr.P.C.,’^{butitisagainstthe} order dated 30.12.2008 dismissing the review petition.^{Therearenomeritsin}

¶120

the revision.

¶121