( 1 ) RESPONDENT is a private complainant and petitioner is the accused in C. C. No. 606/98 on the file of the Court below wherein the latter is being proceeded against for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short ). Petitioner is represented by her learned counsel in the case before the learned Magistrate. She has been enlarged on bail on 26-2-1999 and her plea of not guilty is also recorded on 31-12-1999.

( 2 ) ON 31-12-1999, after her plea was recorded, the petitioner being a widow and a permanent resident of Bangalore City, an application under Section 205, Cr. P. C. on her behalf was filed praying that the learned Magistrate may be pleased to exempt her from personal attendance at the trial in the case, on the ground that as a woman accused from Bangalore she had to experience a lot of difficulty and hardship in attending the trial Court on all the dates of hearing. That application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 19-10-2000 on the ground that Non Bailable Warrant had to be issued against her to secure her attendance on the previous dates of hearing. Aggrieved by that order, she has approached this Court for redressal of her grievance.

( 3 ) AS submitted by her learned counsel, the identity of the petitioner in the said C. C. No. 606/98 is not in dispute. This submission would remain as a part of the record thereof.

( 4 ) SINCE the exercise of power under Section 205, Cr. P. C. is a matter entirely between the learned trial Magistrate and the accused, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-complainant by reason of presence or absence of petitioner at the trial in the said case, notice to the latter in this revision is dispensed with.

( 5 ) THE offence under Section 138 of the Act is triable as a summons case. Section 273, Cr. P. C. relates to record of evidence by the trial Court during the trial of a Criminal case, or other proceeding. It states :"except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader. "

( 6 ) SECTION 313, Cr. P. C. provides for examination of accused by the trial Court in any enquiry or trial. The proviso to sub-clause (b) of Section 313 (1) Cr. P. C. stipulates that :". . . in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under Clause (b ). "the Supreme Court in Basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka, (2000 AIR SCW 3692 : (2000 Cri LJ 4604)) shedding the light on the sweep of this proviso to Section 313 (1) (b) has stated at page 4610 of Cri LJ :". . . is it necessary that in all cases, the accused must answer, by personally remaining present in Court. We clarify that this is the requirement and would be the general rule. However, if remaining present involves undue hardship and large expense, could the Court not alleviate the difficulties. If the Court holds the view that the situation in which he (the accused) made such a plea is genuine, should the Court say that he has no escape but he must undergo all the tribulations and hardships and answer such questions personally presenting himself in Court. . . . . . . ". Further at Para 22 of its judgment, the Supreme Court proceeds to observe :"the one category of offences which is specifically exempted from the rigour of Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code is "summons Cases". At Para 24, the Supreme Court proceeds further to elaborate at page 4611 of Cri LJ :"24. We think that a pragmatic and humanistic approach is warranted in regard to such special exigencies. The word "shall" in Clause (b) to Section 313 (1) of the Code is to be interpreted as obligatory on the Court and it should be complied with when it is for the benefit of the accused. But if it works to his great prejudice and disadvantage the Court sho

Click Here to Read the rest of this document