G. Sridhar Reddy, Vs S.Vijayakumar Reddy

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.470 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1 Complainant is the appellant herein and this appeal is directed against the order dated 24.10.2007 passed in C.C.No.462 of 2002 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad whereby the complaint filed by the appellant was dismissed under section 204 of Cr.P.C. for non payment of process.

¶4

2 The appellant filed the said complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act stating that the cheque issued by the 1^st respondent was dishonoured.

¶5

3 This court while admitting this appeal ordered notice to the respondent pursuant to which the learned counsel for the appellant took out personal notice to the respondent but the same was returned unserved with an endorsement “party refused”. From a perusal of the order impugned in this revision, it is clear that the appellant has not paid the process fee.

¶6

4 Now that the appellant has come forward explaining the reasons because of which he could not appear before the court below on the particular day and expresses his willingness to pay the process fee immediately, this court is of the view that an opportunity may be given to the appellant and the said C.C.No.462 of 2002 can be restored to file.

¶7

5 Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the order impugned in this revision is set aside and the said C.C.No.462 of 2002 on the file of the court of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Hyderabad is restored to its file. The complainant / appellant is hereby directed to pay the process fee into the court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶8

22.02.2011 Kvsn

G. Sridhar Reddy, v. S.Vijayakumar Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sridhar Reddy, v. S.Vijayakumar Reddy

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

Vungarala Satyanarayana Murthy Naidu, Vs Vungarala Narayana Murthy Naidu

Sk.MAdar Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Danthamsetty Basava Reddy , Basavaiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Bachu Baskara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Allah Kirana and Jaggery Merchants, Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Proh. and Excise

Repaka Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh