logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1534 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Criminal Appeal No. 1033 of 2008
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
Parties : Namburi Mohana Krisnna Raju Versus Anyam Krishna Rao & Another
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G.L. Nageswar Rao, Advocate. For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP).
Date of Judgment : 14-08-2026
Head Note :-
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 372/374(2)/378(4) -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to set-a-aside the Judgment dt. 13-11 2007 in CC.No. 162 of 2007 on the file of the Addl.J.F.C.M.,Kothapeta, East Godavari District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(CRLAMP 1487 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of ''17'' days in representing the above case.

IA NO: 2 OF 2008(CRLAMP 1503 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file the Crl.A., against the order of discharge dt. 13-11-2007 in CC.No. 162 of 2007 on the file of the Addl. J.F.C.M., Kothapeta, East Godavari District in discharging the respondent No.1 for offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in the interest of justice.)

1. The learned counsel for the Appellant submits that they could not serve notice on the Accused for all these years.

2. The counsel also submitted that the Criminal Appeal cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution like a civil case.

3. The Court posed a query on law under Section 256 of Cr.P.C, then the learned counsel left the issue to the Court.

4. The Court perused the Trial Court record, it reveals that the Complainant/Appellant was absent and there was no representation for him, and the Trial Court dismissed the complaint and discharged the Accused.

5. Thus, the Appeal cannot be disposed of on merits, as the notice could not be served on the accused for all these years and further the Trial Court Judgment was not on merits.

6. Section 256 of Cr.P.C, which provides that when the Complainant is absent, the Court may discharge the Accused. For reference, Section 256 of Cr.P.C is extracted hereunder:

                  256. Non-appearance or death of complainant.

                  (1) If the summons has been issued on complaint, and on the day appointed for the appearance of the accused, or any day subsequent thereto to which the hearing may be adjourned, the complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, acquit the accused, unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day :

                  Provided that where the complainant is represented by a pleader or by the officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case.

                  (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply also to cases where the non-appearance of the complainant is due to his death.

7. Thus, as per Section 256 r/w 262 of Cr.P.C, the Complaint can be dismissed for non-prosecution and the Accused be acquitted, which is accordingly done by the Trial Court in this case.

8. The material reveals that the Appellant/Complainant did not take proper steps for about 18 years to serve notice on the Accused, thus this Court cannot proceed with the Appeal on merits in the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

9. The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal