The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial courts must adhere to the principles and procedures outlined in relevant judgments and legal provisions when considering applications for exemption from personal appearance and issuing warrants or processes under the Criminal Procedure Code.

A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) EXEMPTION allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

( 2 ) APPLICATION stands disposed of.

( 3 ) NOTICE. Mr. Soni accepts notice for the State. I have heard the learned Counsel at length.

( 4 ) COMPLAINT cases titled as M/s. Development Credit Bank v. M/s. Shamken snippers Ltd. under Sections 138/141, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is filed in which the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Chaturvedi is arrayed as one of the accused persons. He was summoned for 14th July, 2006. Petitioner appeared through his Counsel on that date and moved as application for exemption from his personal appearance. Finding no merit in the said application, the same was dismissed by the learned ACMM. The learned ACMM issued non-bailable warrants against the petitioner for 26th August, 2006. These NWBs could not be executed for 26th August, 2006 with the report that premises were found locked and whereabout of petitioner could not be traced. In these circumstances, on 26th August, 2006, the learned ACMM has issued process under sections 82/83, Cr. P. C. against the petitioner and similar co-accused persons.

( 5 ) IN this petition, the petitioner is challenging both the orders dated 14th July, 2006, issuing non-bailable warrants as well as order dated 26th August, 2006, issuing process under Sections 82/83, Cr. P. C. It is the submission of Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that since petitioner had appeared through his counsel on 14th July, 2006 and moved an application for his exemption, even if the said application was dismissed, in a case like this under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881, the learned Trial Court could not be issued the non-bailable warrants. He further submits that even on 26th August, 2006, the petitioner's lawyer had appeared and moved an application for his personal exemption. Though in the order dated 26th August, 2006, attendance of petitioner's Lawyer is not recorded and the application for exemption has also not been dealt with. His submission is that in any case the process under Sections 82/83 could not have been issued when the petitioner was not absconding and was in fact appearing through Counsel. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments: 1. Praveen Juneja v. State of Delhi and Anr. , 118 (2005) DLT 28. 2. Bhasker Sen and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. , 2004 (3) JCC (NI) 180 (Bombay High Court ). 3. Veer Mahadev Singh Khalsa v. State, through CB1, 2003 (2) JCC 661. 4. Court on its own Motion v. State through CBI, 109 (2004) DLT 494=1 (2004) CCR 225=2004 (1) JCC 308. 5. Puneet Singh Chauhan and Anr. v. State and Anr. , 107 (2003) DLT 220=2003 (3) JCC 1485.

( 6 ) IN case of Court on its own Motion v. State through CBI (supra), this Court had issued directions for criminal Courts which are as under:"arrest of a person for less serious or such kinds of offence or offences those can be investigated without arrest by the police cannot be brooked by any civilised society. Directions for Criminal Courts- (i) Whenever officer-in-charge of police station or investigation agency like CBI files a charge-sheet without arresting the accused during investigation and does not produce the accused in custody as referred in Section 170, Cr. P. C. the Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused shall accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed according to the procedure laid "down in Section 173, cr. P. C. and exercise the options available to it as discussed in this judgment. In such a case the Magistrate or Court shall invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. (ii) In case the Court or Magistrate exercises the discretion of issuing warrant of arrest at any stage including the stage while taking cognizance of the charge-sheet, he or it shall have to record the reasons in writing as contemplated under Section 87, Cr. P. C. that the accused has either been abscondin