ROHIT S VED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a person facing allegations in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and against whom a warrant of arrest-bailable or non-bailable, has been issued by a Magistrate to produce his presence appear before the Magistrate through counsel and claim exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and plead guilty Should his personal presence be insisted This is the short question that is raised by the petitioner in this Criminal M.C.

(2.) The petitioner faces indictment in prosecutions under Section 138 of the NI Act. The prosecutions are pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur and the learned Judicial Magistrates of First Class, Thrissur and Kunnamkulam. The allegations relate to cheques issued by the petitioner for the discharge of liability under the E.S.I. Act, and the Employees' Provident Fund Act. In some of the cases, the petitioner has entered appearance. In some others, the petitioner has not entered appearance. In some other warrants of arrest have been issued against the petitioner. He has already discharged the liability under the cheques. The petitioner wants to appear before such courts through counsel and plead guilty in all the cases. The petitioner apprehends that as warrants are pending against him in some of these cases, he may not be permitted to plead guilty through counsel. It is hence prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to enable him to so appear before the learned Magistrates through counsel and plead guilty.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is obliged to approach this Court as the question does not appear to have been decided finally and conclusively in Jain Babu v. Joseph.,2008 4 KLT 16 As a consequence, Magistrates are insisting even when the accused want to plead guilty or take part in the proceedings through counsel that such applications cannot be entertained without the personal presence of the accused.