S MADHAVA Vs. CANBANK FACTORS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are considered together for passing a common order since a common question of law and fact is involved. Under the present petitions, the petitioner contends that he is facing prosecutions under Section 138 of the N. I. Act in several places and in particular at Bangalore in more than 850 cases in different Courts.

(2.) RELYING upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. K. Jain v. Union of India reported in (2000) 1 SCC 709: (AIR 2000 SC 3609 (2)) contends that the petitioner is prepared to give the undertaking as envisaged under ratio and thus prays for exemption under Section 305 of Cr. P. C. from his regular appearance on all the hearing dates.

(3.) THE petitioner submits that he is the Director of the Company. Therefore, under Section 305 of Cr. P. C. seek an exemption. The facts of the decision of the Supreme Court indicate that the innumerable prosecutions launched against the prosecution under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was sought to be quashed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner is unable to go to different Courts, where the cases are pending. Considering the practical hardships, the Supreme Court laid down the ratio granting exemption from personal appearance on the following conditions :-