ORDER :

All these revision petitions are disposed of by a common order as the parties and the question to be decided are common.

2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, by his common judgment dated 31.8.2019 dismissed Criminal Appeals 5 to 10/2019 preferred by the petitioner herein challenging the judgment of conviction passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class (‘Magistrate’ for short’), Udupi, in C.C.Nos.2013/2018, 2015/2018, 2016/2018, 2017/2018, 2018/2018 and 2019/2018. The petitioner being the accused in all these criminal cases faced prosecution for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheques issued by him for discharging his liability in connection with the loan said to have been obtained by him from the respondent were dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in his bank account.

3. It has been held by the Magistrate in all the cases that the petitioner did not appear before the court in spite of service of summons on him. Therefore the Magistrate, following the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Others vs. Union of India [(2014) 5 SCC 590], accepted the affidavits filed in all the cases by the respondent, dispensed with the statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C and then proceeded to convict and sentence the petitioner in all the cases. Except referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association, T. Vasanthakumar vs. Vijayakumari [(2015) 8 SCC 378], K. Subramani vs. Damodar Naidu [(2015) 1 SCC 99] and Heinz India Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2012) 5 SCC 443], the learned Magistrate has not discussed the facts and the evidence.

4. The learned Sessions Judge has held that from the evidence given by the complainant and the documents produced by him, a case against the petitioner/accused was made out. The Sessions Judge has observed that as it is held in various judgments that offence under section 138 is a document based offence and therefore there is no need for waiting for the accused to appear before the court, the trial court is justified in convicting the petitioner in all the cases.

5. Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, assailing the judgment of the Sessions Court as also of the Magistrate urged the following grounds for consideration in these revision petitions : -

5.1. The trial court erred in holding the trial in the absence of the accused; unfortunately the Sessions Court also affirmed the findings of the trial court without noticing the fact that the accused was not secured at all. Criminal trials must be held in the presence of the accused unless the accused seeks exemption of his personal appearance.

5.2. Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for summary trial and it is clearly mentioned in the said section that the procedure prescribed in sections 262 to 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply for conducting trials. In this view, recording plea of the accused under section 251 of Cr.P.C is compulsory. Since the trial court has not followed this procedure, the judgment of conviction violates the concept of due procedure of law found in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5.3. The trial court has referred to many judgments of the Supreme Court, but it has failed to understand the actual principles laid down in them. The Sessions Judge, sitting in appeal, should have meticulously examined whether the judgment of the trial court challenged before him could actually be sustained. Even the approach of the Sessions Judge appears to be very mechanical.

5.4. If the accused does not respond to the summons issued by the Magistrate, his presence must be secured by issuing warrant or proclamation. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association does not state that the trial can be held in the absence of the accused, there is no concept of placing the accused ex-parte as is prevalent in civil trials. Examination of the accused und