Judgment : This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 24-9-2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District, at Rajahmundry, whereby and where under, the learned Principal Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment dated 02-01-2012 passed in C.C.No.346 of 2011 on the file of VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry. 2. The petitioner is the complainant and the 1st respondent is the accused in C.C.No.346 of 2011. The complainant filed complaint against the accused alleging inter alia that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-on 02.5.2009 for his family expenses and executed a demand promissory note in his favour. The accused issued a cheque bearing No.919749 dated 6-4-2011 drawn on Indian Bank, Rajahmundry Branch for Rs.1,25,000/- towards discharge of his liability under the pronotedated 2-5-2009. The complainant presented the chequeon 6-4-2011 and it came to be dishonoured on the ground of insufficient funds. The complainant issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the N.I. Actcalling upon the accused to pay the amount covered under the chequein question. The accused received the notice on 3-5-2011, but he did not choose to pay the amount covered under the chequein question. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 3. The learned VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry took the complaint on file as C.C.No.346 of 2011. The CC stood posted for representing the process for execution of the N.B.W against the accused. The complainant failed to be present and thereby, the learned VI Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry proceeded to dismiss the complaint, by judgment dated 02-01-2012. Assailing the judgment dated 02-01-2012 passed in C.C.No.346 of 2011; the complainant filed Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2012. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavariat Rajahmundry, on hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the appeal, by judgment dated 24-09-2012. Hence this Criminal Revision Case. 4. Notice to the 1st respondent came to be ordered on 29-11-2012. Despite notice being served, the 1st respondent/accused did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the revision. 6. Hence this Criminal Revision Case. 4. Notice to the 1st respondent came to be ordered on 29-11-2012. Despite notice being served, the 1st respondent/accused did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the revision. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner/complainant paid the process on 15-11-2011 and the batta paid by him has been taken on record. The petitioner could not represent before the Court on 02-01-2012 regarding representation of the batta and thereby, the case ended in dismissal. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that non-representation on 02-01-2012 was not intentional and it was due to unavoidable circumstances. 7. Be that as it may, the cheque amount is Rs.1,25,000/-. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the petitioner to prosecute his case against the 1st respondent. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 24-9-2012 passed in Criminal Appeal No.252 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavariat Rajahmundry. Consequently, C.C.No.346 of 2011 stands restored to file. The petitioner shall pay the process for issuance of N.B.W against the 1st respondent/accused within three weeks. Thereupon, further proceedings shall be conducted by the trial Court in accordance with law.