TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (4) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y were dishonoured. Rami Reddy filed a complaint petition in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurnool purported to be under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') on 6.6.2001. It was registered as C.C. No. 368 of 2001. Rami Reddy expired on 28.10.2003. Respondents herein filed an application for substitution of their names in place of the said Rami Reddy on 22.12.2003. Appellant filed an objection thereto. No order was passed on the said application. The counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant started representing the proposed heirs of the said Rami Reddy. It appears that on or about 18.4.2005 till 23.1.2006, i.e., on 14 dates nobody represented....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justification for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, supported the impugned judgment. 6. Admittedly, the respondents themselves did not seriously press their applications for their substitution in place of the original complainant. 7. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers a Magistrate to pass an order of acquittal on non-appearance or death of the complainant. The complaint petition was filed in the year 2001. Rami Reddy died in 2003. A large number of dates were fixed for hearing of the case. Although, on some dates, the respondents were either present in court in person or were represented by their Advocate, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d caution. The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. Appellant had been attending the court for a long time, except on some dates where when remained absent or was otherwise represented by his Advocate. He had to remain present in court. He attended the court on not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant. If in the aforementioned situation, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretionary jurisdiction, the same, in our opinion, should not have been ordinarily interfered with. 11. The High Court was exercising its jurisdiction under Sub-section (4) of Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appea....