SHIVANI SEDANAND Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dorected againt order 28.th June 20o1 aseed by Sh. A.K. Sarpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial.

(2.) Facts in brief are that respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'N.I.Act") against the petitioner alleging that petitioner had issued a; cheque for a sum of Rs.70,000.00 drawn on UCO Bank, Noida( UP ) in his favour. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks "refer to drawer' due to funds not being sufficient in the account of the petitioner . The petitioner did not make the payment of the cheque amount even after the legal notice. By order dated 18/09/1995, trial, court took cognizance and summons were issued for appearance of the petitioner to face the trial .In compliance of the summons, petitioner appeared before the trial court and was admitted on bail. Thereafter, she was served with a notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was then adjourned for evidence of the complainant. The petitioner moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial . The trial court vide order dated 30th May, 2000 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner moved a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court seeking directions to the trial court to dispense with appearance of the petitioner in the said case. Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.C. Chopra vide order dated 18/04/2001, passed in Crl .M .(M) No. 4668/2000 directed the petitioner to move a fresh application for exemption before the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the' application in accordance with law laid down in Geeta Sethi v. State Crl .M.(M) ..No.4685/2000 decided on 12/03/2000 and S. Nihal Singh and Others V. Arjan Das. 1985 Crl. L. J. 467 Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application for exemption stating therein that she is a permanent resident of Bombay; she has a small baby to take care of she has to face difficulties in travelling from Bombay to Delhi on all dates of hearing; the question of identity is not involved in the trial and she undertook to appear before the court as and when required. The trial court vide impugned order dated 28/06/2001 dismissed the application observing:

(3.) The above order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record Learned counsel for respondent No .2 very fairly conceded that grant or refusal of exemption is within the discretion of the Court.