MOHAMMAD SAJID QURESHI Vs. R PRATHAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of fact and law arise in these three petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In all these three cases proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against the petitioners by the first respondent in the respective petitions, in which summons were issued to them. They, without being present on the day of first hearing, filed petitions seeking exemption from their personal attendance. Those petitions were allowed and the cases were adjourned. On that date of adjournment also petitioners were absent and they again filed petitions to condone their absence. They also field petitions seeking permission to be represented through their counsel in the respective cases. The learned Magistrate, holding that in view of Section 251 Cr.P.C. he has to furnish copies to the accused and should also examine them to find out if they plead guilty or not, after putting the substance of the accusations against them, dismissed those petitions. Those orders of dismissal are the subject matter of these petitions.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the ratio in RamojiRao v. V. V. Rajam 'and DasariHouse of Publication Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Apple Credit Corporation Ltd.2 since presence of accused is not essential in a summons case, he can be represented through a counsel, who can plead guilty or not guilty on behalf of the accused, and since the Supreme Court in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka held that the presence of the accused is not essential even at the stage of Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination, and his counsel can represent and answer those questions on his behalf, the Court below was in error in dismissing the petitions. Heard the learned counsel for first respondents (complainants ) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.