VENKATESWARA TEA TRADERS Vs. MADHU AGENCIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the orders of the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet, dated 6.04.2004 in C.C. No.98 of 2002. The revision petitioner is the complainant. Respondent No.1 is the accused.

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 did not appear despite service of notice.

(3.) IN the present case, the presence of the complainant on 6.04.2004, patently was not necessary as the case stood posted for the appearance of the accused only. After appearance of the accused, papers should be supplied to the accused and the accused should be accorded an opportunity to engage a counsel. Thereafter on hearing both sides, accusation has to be made by the Court against the accused. Only thereafter, the case goes to trial, at which time the presence of the complainant would be necessary.