The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to make a reference under Section 395(2), and the requirements of Section 441 for release on bail or bond.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. A proceeding being Complaint Case No. 174/2003 was initiated by Sri Sajjan Kr. Agarwal (Goel), under Sections 138 / 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, ('the Act') against M/s. R.S. Trading Company, Mr. Pisi Jawlai Singpho and Mrs. Roitong Singpho, in the court of the learned CJM at Tinsukia alleging that the accused persons in discharge of their liabilities issued and handed over an account payee cheque dated 7.4.2003 for Rs. 20,00,000 drawn on the State Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch, Tinsukia, but when such cheque was presented with the United Bank of India, Tinsukia Branch it was returned unpaid on the ground of in sufficient fund - "not arranged for." The learned Magistrate after recording the initial deposition of the complainant vide order dated 1.7.2003 took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and issued process. The accused persons instead of appearing before the learned Magistrate pursuant to the summons issued, approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 427/2003 for quashing of the said proceeding in the complaint case. Though a Single Bench of this Court initially passed an interim order staying further proceeding of the complaint case, the said revision petition was eventually dismissed vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2006. After dismissal of the revision petition filed by the accused persons, fresh summons were issued by the learned Magistrate.

2. Mrs. Roitong Singpho, the accused No. 3 in the complaint case, thereafter, through the learned Counsel, filed an application on 12.8.2006 before the learned Magistrate praying for dispensing with her personal appearance before the court and to allow her to be represented by the learned Counsel, under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground that she is a resident of Changlang in Arunachal Pradesh and suffering from various illness and has been advised complete bed rest by the attending doctor for which it is very difficult and inconvenient on her part to attend the court at Tinsukia after undertaking a long journey on each and every date. The said application was rejected by the learned CJM vide order dated 2.8.2006 on the ground that if the said accused person is allowed to be represented by a learned Counsel, without appearing before the court, the progress of the trial would be hampered. The learned Magistrate having held so directed issuance of bailable warrant of arrest fixing 19.8.2006 for appearance. The said accused person, thereafter, approached this Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 310/2006 challenging the order dated 2.8.2006 passed by the learned CJM and for dispensing with her personal attendance before the learned Magistrate and to allow her to be represented by the counsel during pendency of the trial in Complaint Case No. 174/2003. A Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.8.2006, upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, passed the order allowing the Petitioner to be represented by her duly engaged counsel during the proceeding before the learned Magistrate with a further direction to the Petitioner to appear before the court as and when so directed and also to regularly appear in person before the learned court below immediately after she recovers from the ailment or as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. The said order was passed having regard to the ailment of the Petitioner. The bailable warrant of arrest issued against the Petitioner was also directed to be recalled by the said order.

3. Meanwhile, the accused person lodged an FIR in Miao Police Station, Arunachal Pradesh, against the complainant in Complaint Case No. 174/2003, which was registered as Miao P.S. Case No. 28/2006 under Sections 406 / 467 / 468 / 471 read with Section 34 IPC, which came to be, challenged by the said complainant in the said complaint case by filling an application under Section482, Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court in Criminal Pet