Important Point:
Legal justice requires that an offender convicted of a crime must suffer the imprisonment as otherwise there would be social anarchy. People would contravene the law with impunity without any attending punishment for violating the law. The very foundations of democracy and rule of law would be shaken and that is the reason why the Courts strive to treat all persons before the criminal law as equal. Whether one is rich or poor, whether one is in powerful or powerless, the criminal law is equally applied to all equally.

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant herein - original accused seeks to invoke the inherent powers of this Court and has prayed for the following reliefs:

"9(a) To direct the lower appellate court to register the appeal of petitioner, through his pleader against impugned judgment in Criminal Case No.80/2012, registered at trial Court, at Mandvi Kutch.

(b) To suspend the execution of impugned sentence against the petitioner in aforesaid criminal case.

(c) pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this application, to stay the execution of arrest warrant against the petitioner, issued by trial Court, at Mandvi, Kutch in aforesaid criminal case.

(d) To pass any other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper."

2. The facts of this case may be summarised as under:

2.1. The respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint against the applicant herein in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandvi, Kachchh for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint culminated in the Criminal Case No.80 of 2012. It appears that the applicant herein had preferred an application under Section 317 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") seeking exemption from remaining personally present before the Court vide Exhibit: 8. The Principal Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Mandvi, Kachchh, by his order dated 23rd March 2012, allowed the application Exhibit: 8 and granted exemption from personal appearance on the condition that the applicant shall remain present in the Court as and when directed.

2.2. The Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mandvi, vide judgment and order dated 8th October 2015 passed in the Criminal Case No.80 of 2012, convicted the applicant herein for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced the applicant to undergo one year of simple imprisonment. The trial Court also passed an order, in exercise of its power under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C., for compensation to the tune of Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees Thirteen lac only) i.e. the amount equivalent to the amount of the cheque. The trial Court directed that in default of the payment of the amount towards compensation, the applicant accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.

2.3. It appears from the materials on record that on 6th October 2015 i.e. the date on which the judgment and order of conviction and sentence was pronounced by the trial Court, the applicant accused was not present. According to the applicant accused, he was sick, but his advocate was present before the Court when the judgment and order was pronounced.

2.4. It also appears that on the very same day i.e. the date on which the judgment and order was pronounced, the trial Court issued a non-bailable warrant against the applicant accused for the purpose of execution of the sentence.

2.5. It further appears from the materials on record that the learned advocate, who was appearing for the applicant accused, preferred an application under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of the substantive order of sentence on the ground that the applicant accused wanted to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The said application filed by the learned advocate of the applicant accused was ordered to be rejected on the very day i.e. 6th October 2015 on the ground that the accused was not present before the Court, and in his absence, the trial Court cannot suspend the substantive order of sentence under Section 389(3) of the Cr.P.C. to enable the accused to prefer an appeal before the Sessions Court.

2.6. It appears that the applicant accused herein, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Sessions Court which was numbered as I.R. No.2016 of 2015. The Sessions Court declined to register the appeal on the ground that the trial Cour