M SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. T RUKIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short grievance of the petitioner, who faced indictment in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, is that the exemption granted in his favour under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been cancelled unnecessarily and unjustifiably by the learned Magistrate as per order dt. 18.1.2007.

(2.) Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The learned Magistrate reports that exemption happened to be cancelled only because the accused person and his counsel were both absent on the days of posting. The order sheet has been placed before court for perusal. The exemption is seen cancelled on 18.1.07. On that day the complainant was absent. The Power of Attorney holder was present. There is no noting that the accused was not represented by his counsel. In fact the order dt. 18.1.07 in the order sheet reads as follows:

(3.) Having gone through the order sheet maintained by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any justification in the mechanical, and what appears to be automatic, cancellation of exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. granted in favour of the accused. I am satisfied that the course adopted by the learned Magistrate is incorrect and not justifiable. Merely because the case is posted for evidence, exemption granted to an accused does not deserve to be mechanically cancelled. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that cancellation of exemption was not justified and the said order warrants and deserves interference.