A Supreme Court judgment is a binding precedent for all courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated 16-12- 2000 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in a proceeding being case No. C/3851/ 2000 under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint filed by the present opposite party alleging that the accused No. 1 in the petition of complaint issued a cheque on 20-7-2000 amounting Rs. 64,000/- in favour of the complainant in discharge of existing financial liability. The said cheque was presented for encashment and the same was dishonoured by the Bank. Demand Notice was sent to the drawer of the cheque asking him to make the payment. On failure to make the payment within the stipulated period the cause of action arose and the petition of complaint was filed against the company and two of its directors alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N. J. Act.

( 3 ) ON the date fixed for appearance an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed on behalf of the present petitioners. On such application the learned Magistrate passed an order that the application under Section 205, Cr. P. C. would be heard after the appearance of the accused persons. Challenging such order the present revisional application has been preferred.

( 4 ) IN a judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in V. K. Jam v. Union of India and Ors. , it has been held as follows: All the same, considering the plight of the petitioner in defending prosecution proceedings instituted at various places in India on the strength of the cheques issued by the Company of which he was the Director, we permit the petitioner to move the court concerned (before which the prosecution is pending in any of the cases) for exempting him from personal appearance. This can be done only after making the first appearance in the court concerned. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, we direct the court concerned to exempt him from personal appearance on the following conditions:1. A counsel on his behalf would be present in the particular court on days when his case is taken up. 2. He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case. 3. He will be present in court when such presence is imperatively needed.

( 5 ) REFERRING to the aforesaid judgment it is submitted by Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the aforesaid judgment does not lay down the law that the accused must first appear and then apply for exemption. The said judgment is not a precedent for such a proposition. To explain what is a binding precedence Mr. Roy refers to a judgment reported in State of Orissa v. Sudhangshu Sekhar Mishra, wherein it was held by the Honble Apex Court as follows: A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation, found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from judgment and to build upon it.

( 6 ) MR. Roy in support of his contention relies on a judgment reported in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India: The doctrine of precedent that is being bound by a previous decision, is limited to the decision itself and as to what is necessarily involved in it. In other words the enunciation of the reason or principle upon which a question before a Court has been decided is alone as a precedent. The ratio decedent is the underlying principle, namely the general reasons or the general grounds upon which the decision is based on the test or abstract from the specific peculiarities of the particular case which gives rise to the decision.

( 7 ) MR. Roy next relies on a judgment of the Honble Apex Court reported in Union, of India v. Dhanawanti Devi. In the, said judgment it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as follows: It is