AGRO SERVICE CENTER Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., inter alia praying to quash the order dated 3.4.2003 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar in I.C.C. No. 30/2003.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , a complaint case was filed against the petitioners and cognizance had been taken for commission of an offence Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. It is submitted that when the case was posted, an application under Section 205, Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioners with a prayer to dispense with their personal attendance and permitting them to appear by their pleader. The said petition was rejected by the impugned order. The learned Court below relying upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, reported in 1999 S.C. (Crl.) 1284 Crl. L.J. 4606, has arrived at a conclusion that the Court has a discretion under Section 205, Cr.P.C. and such discretion needs to be exercised in rare instances. But then, an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is something distinctly separate from offences under other Acts. A case under Section 138 of N.I. Act can be effectually adjudicated even in the absence of the accused persons on the basis of documents available. This subtle difference was not kept in mind by the Court below. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Lath v. State of Orissa reported in (1992) 5 OCR 97, this Court has clearly held that the personal attendance of the accused should not be insisted upon unless it is absolutely necessary in the proceeding.

(3.) IN view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements, I have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order and dispose of this case directing the Court below to permit the petitioners to be represented through their Advocate Under Section 205. Cr.P.C. unless their presence is very much necessary for an effectual adjudication of the dispute.