Shambhoo Singh, J. - This is an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the accused-petitioner by which he is challenging the order dated 3-10-1996 passed by J.N.F.C., Indore (Court No. 26) passed in criminal case No. 707/95.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent-complainant filed a private complaint against the petitioner-accused on 8-9-1995 under Section 135 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the allegations that the petitioner placed order for supply of goods and on 3-5-1995 tendered two cheques of 1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,33,000/- and he supplied the ordered goods. But these cheques were dishonoured on 31-5-1995 with the remarks 'funds insufficient'. On the request of the petitioner, the cheques were again presented to the Bank but were again dishonoured. After notice the respondent filed a complaint on 8-8-1995. The learned Magistrate after recording statement of the complainant registered offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons to the petitioner for his appearance.

3. On 3-10-1996, Advocate of the petitioner made an application for condonation of his absence on the ground that on 3-10-1996 there was 'Shradha' and 'Satam' of his son who had expired on 9-9-1995, therefore, he was not in a position to attend the Court. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate, and his bail-bonds were cancelled and warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued against the petitioper. The petitioner filed an application on 6-12-1996 for recalling the order dated 3-10-1996 and also prayed for exemption which was rejected.

4. No one appeared on the date of hearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant and Mr. G. Desai, G.A. respondent-State, advanced arguments. Mr. Purohit, learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner is avoiding his presence in the Court. He was absent on 27-6-1996, 6-3-1996, 10-5-1996, 30-5-1996, 2-8-1996, 13-8-1996 and 3-10-1996. The petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his absence on 3-10-1996, therefore, the Court rightly cancelled his bail-bonds and ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest.

5. I considered the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for respondent/complainant and respondent/State and perused the record.

6. This complaint was filed on 8-8-1995 and case was registered on 25-9-1995. From the perusal of the order sheet and copy of the order dated 6-12-1996, it appears that the petitioner did not appear in the Court and prayed for exemption on various grounds which was allowed by the trial Magistrate. On 3-10-1996 the petitioner's Advocate filed application stating that the petitioner was unable to attend the Court on 3-10-1996 as his son had died on 19-9-1995 and on 3-10-1996 there was his 'Shradha' and 'Satam'. Alongwith the application, cutting of the news-papers wherein the photo of son of the petitioner and news of 'Shradha' and 'Satam' was published and produced. The Jearned Magistrate rejected this application observing that the reasons stated in the application were not proper for condonation of absence of the petitioner and cancelled his bail-bonds and issued warrant of arrest. From the penlsal of the application and newspaper cutting, it appears that on 3-10-1996 there was 'Shradha' and 'Satam' of the son of the petitioner, who had expired on 9-9-1995.

In my opinion, this was sufficient and adequate grounds for condoning the absence of the petitioner on 3-10-1996. It appears that the learned trial Judge looking to the fact that previously the petitioner did not appear in the Court on several dates of hearing and sought exemption, rejected his applications. In my opinion, this was not permissible. The learned Magistrate being satisfied with the cause shown by the petitioner, had granted exemption on earlier dates. On that ground his application dated 3-10-1996 could not be rejected. On 3-10-1996 the petitioner had sufficient reasons for his absence