SIDDHARTH SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of five petitions involves a common question of law and, therefore, were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The prayer in the first four petitions is for quashing of the non-bailable warrants (for short, "nbw"), while in the last petition the prayer is for quashing of the order passed under section 82 of Criminal Procedure code, 1973 (for short, "code"), by which the proclamation has been published requiring him to appear before the learned Magistrate. All these petitions arise from the proceedings under section 138 of negotiable INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881, (for short, "the Act" ).

(2.) THE question raised in these petitions is as to whether in summons case it is imperative for an accused to appear in the trial Court on each and every date of hearing and/or whether the Courts should be generous and liberal in exercising the powers conferred under sections 2t35 and 317 of the Code and dispensing with a physical presence of an accused unless his presence is imperatively needed. For appreciating the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties better and for deciding the said question, the factual matrix in all the petitions, that would be relevant and material, in brief, is as under.

(3.) IT is against a backdrop of these facts, I would like to consider the question of law raised by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. I heard all the learned counsel appearing in these matters for quite some time. The leading arguments were advanced by mr. Jha and Mr Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in brief, are as follows.