AMIT KUMAR PUGALIA Vs. TEZPORE TEA COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN connection with a proceeding under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act relating to Case No. C-11904 of 2005, now pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 16th Court, Calcutta, the petitioner after being released on bail, on the very next day made an application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for his exemption from personal appearance during the day-to-day proceedings of the said case. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a permanent resident of Delhi and if he is required to be present on each day of hearing of the matter the same shall cause tremendous hardship to him. However, the learned Magistrate refused to consider his such prayer and directed that the same shall be considered in his presence. Hence, this Criminal Revision.

(2.) HEARD the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party.

(3.) HAVING gone through the impugned order, I am unable to sustain the same. It is the settled position that in a summons case, the Court can even exempt the personal appearance of the accused without the accused being present in Court for any time. In the instant case the petitioner has appeared in Court and obtained bail, as such, the order passed by the learned magistrate insisting the petitioner to be present for the purpose of consideration of his application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure is not at all justified and is illegal. Accordingly, the said order so far as that relates to a direction against the petitioner for being present in court on the day fixed for hearing of his application under section 205 of the code of Criminal Procedure is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the said application in accordance with law, without insisting the petitioner to be personally present in Court.