The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the court to grant exemption from personal appearance in a criminal trial and the factors to be considered in exercising this discretion.

The point for decision in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is whether an accused who has applied for permanent exemption from personal appearance is entitled to remain absent merely on the ground that his application has not been disposed of.

2. In the prosecution, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner - a Director of accused No.1-Company sought for permanent exemption from appearance on the ground that he being a businessman staying in Delhi was required to visit different places and it would be inconvenient for him to attend the Court on all dates. That application was filed after closure of the cross-examination of P.W.1 i.e., the complainant and after the case had been posted for further evidence of the complainant. No decision was taken by the learned Magistrate on that application. In the next date i.e., on 31-1-2005, at the time of recording evidence of P.W.2, since the petitioner was absent, an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. was filed seeking exemption for the day and that was granted. Thereafter, the case was posted to 5-2-2005 for the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. On that day also, an-application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the petitioner. That application was rejected by the learned Additional CMM and NBW was issued to the accused, returnable by 8-2-2005. On 8-2-2005, the bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled and fresh NBW was issued. It is these orders and the proceedings that have been challenged in this petition.

3. Two grounds have been urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of the prayer in the petition. The first ground is regarding the maintainability of the criminal case itself. In this regard, Sri S. G. Bhagawan, learned Counsel for the petitioner invites the attention of the Court to the commencement of order sheet, wherein the words `cognizance taken' are mentioned, but the order does not bear the signature of the learned CMM. He submits that in view of this defect, subsequent proceedings are vitiated. This ground will not be available to the petitioner since subsequent order i.e.. the order dated 20-9-2002 shows that the learned CMM after verifying the original cheque took cognizance of the complaint and after recording the sworn statement of the complainant, directed registration of the case against the petitioner.

Regarding absence of the petitioner on 29-1-2005 and subsequent to that date, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the petitioner was not deliberate and the events would disclose that he had fully co-operated with the Court in the progress of the case. It is submitted that exemption sought was only in view of his genuine difficulties in coming from Delhi to Bangalore only to attend the case often. He points out that in the application itself, it had been clearly stated by the petitioner that his presence was not necessary for progress of the case as he was represented by an advocate who would proceed with its progress including his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He has also not disputed his identification. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that this is not a case wherein cheque had been issued by the petitioner, but that cheque had been issued on behalf of accused No.1-Company. Complaint against the petitioner was given only because he was a Director of the accused No.1-Company and therefore, the circumstance required that exemption from personal appearance be granted.

In this regard, he relies on three decisions. In the first decision in the case of Chandu Lal Chandrakar Vs. Puran Mal, reported in AIR 1988 SC 2163, on conclusion of trial, the accused therein had been directed by the Magistrate to appear personally before the Court for recording his statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.The appellant's request that the statement may be r