Allowed

M/s. B. Srinivas and Brothers v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Sept 2010CRLRC/1242/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a revision against an order dismissing a Section 138 cheque dishonour complaint due to the complainant's absence. Accepting the petitioner's illness as a valid reason, the court set aside the dismissal and restored the case to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 09.06.2009 in C.C.No.422 of 2009 was set aside and the case was restored to the file of the court below.

M/s. B. Srinivas and Brothers Vs The State of Andhra… — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1242 OF 2010

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

1 This revision is directed against the orders dated 09.06.2009 in C.C.No.422 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tandur, R.R. District whereby the complaint preferred by the complainant was dismissed on the ground that the complainant was absent.

¶4

2 The petitioner herein being the complainant filed the said complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheque bearing No.461640 dated 25.03.2009 issued by the 2^nd respondent herein was dishonoured by the banker with an endorsement “insufficient funds” and after following the procedure provided under section 138 of the Act, the said complaint was filed.

¶5

3 The 2^nd respondent, on summons, had put in his appearance and is contesting the said case. As stated supra, on 09.06.2009, as the complainant was absent and as there was no representation on his behalf, the said complaint was dismissed.

¶6

4 Heard both sides.

¶7

5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of adjournment, the petitioner could not attend the court due to ill health only and hence the court below ought to have given an opportunity to the petitioner by adjourning the case to some other date instead of dismissing the same. In support of the said contention the counsel filed a medical certificate stating that the petitioner was not doing well on the

¶8

particular date.

¶9

6 The order impugned in this revision reads as follows: “Complainant absent. No representation. Hence the complaint is dismissed.”

¶10

7 From a reading of the said order, it appears that the said order is passed under section 203 Cr.P.C. When once it is an order passed under section 203 Cr.P.C. a revision is maintainable.

¶11

8 Now the petitioner submitted the circumstances under which he could not be present before the court below on the particular date i.e. because of his ill health. The said contentions put forth by the petitioner appear to be true and genuine and hence they are accepted.

¶12

9 Accordingly this revision is allowed, the order dated 09.06.2009 passed in C.C.No.422 of 2009 by the court below is set aside and the said C.C.No.422 of 2009 is restored to its file. The court below is hereby directed to proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶13

Kvsn

¶14

22.09.2010

M/s. B. Srinivas and Brothers v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. B. Srinivas and Brothers v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganti Sayoji Rao Vs The State of A.P.

Jakkula John Raju, Vs The State - Sub- Inspector of Police Denduluru Police Statio

Muni Reddy M. , Muni Ratna Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Rawoof, Vs Syed Noor Ahmed , Noora

Helical Tubes and Ducts Pvt. Ltd., Admn.Office 1-8-303/34, Vs Sri Mukund Kakani

Vemuri Chowdeswari, Vs Kalidindi Subhadra Devi