Allowed

P.Pattabhi Rami Reddy, v. D. Venkateswrlu

Telangana HC19 Sept 2011CRLA/1211/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, set aside the impugned order dismissing the complaint for default, and restored the file to the Magistrate to proceed further under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed for default is set aside, appeal allowed, and complaint restored to file for further proceedings by the Magistrate.

P.Pattabhi Rami Reddy, Vs D. Venkateswrlu — Cheque Dishonour | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH ATHYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL SR.NO. 3256 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2011

¶6

Between :

¶7

P. Pattabhi Rami Reddy … Appellant-complainant V/s. D.Venkateswarlu & Anr. … Respondents-Accused

¶8

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri A.V.S. Satish Babu

¶9

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None appeared

¶10

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶11

The Court made the following: (Judgment follows next page).

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶13

CRIMINAL APPEAL SR. NO. 3256 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2011

¶14

J U D G M E N T :

¶15

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the order dated 22-10-2010 passed by the V-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.F.No. 1276 of 2010 dismissing the complaint for default.

¶16

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Sagar, the learned counsel representing Sri

¶17

A.V.S. Satish Babu for the appellant and the learned Additional Public

¶18

Prosecutor representing the State.

¶19

3. The appellant filed criminal case, CF.No. 1276 of 2010 against the first respondent alleging the commission of offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When the case is posted for recording the sworn statement of the appellant-complainant, the appellant was absent and the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant was absent and there was no representation

¶20

on his behalf. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

¶21

that the absence of the appellant was neither intentional nor wilful, therefore

¶22

and the appeal may be allowed.

¶23

4. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶24

the appellant, the order passed by the learned V-

¶25

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nellore in C.F.No. 1276 of

¶26

2010 is set aside. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The complaint is

¶27

restored to file. The learned Magistrate is directed to proceed further in the

¶28

case.

¶29

________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO.

¶30

19-09-2011 I s L

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶32

CRIMINAL APPEAL SR.No. 3256 OF 2011 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1211 OF 2011

¶33

Circulation No. 03 Date: 19-09-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No.43

P.Pattabhi Rami Reddy, v. D. Venkateswrlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Pattabhi Rami Reddy, v. D. Venkateswrlu

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

Sri Uggapally Venkatailah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by through Police Station

Shaik Azeem (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Gemini Tv Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Natava Yellaih, Vs Kamatham China Narayana

The Drugs Inspector, Vs B.Ramesh Kumar

Ganemukula Bapu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh