The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion of the Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused in certain situations under S.317 of the Code, while ensuring precautions for the further progress of the proceedings.

1. Leave granted.

2. A Sessions Judge, overlooking a legal interdict, interfered with an interlocutory order and created a situation for the Trial Magistrate to remain nonplussed. That order of the Sessions Judge was sought to be rectified at the behest of the appellant who, for that purpose, moved the High Court. But a learned Single Judge of the High Court declined to interfere. Now the Trial Magistrate might be under a dilemma as to what is the proper course for him to adopt.

3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. Appellant company filed a criminal complaint before the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhopal (M.P.) against 15 accused for the offence under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The first accused in the complaint is a company having its registered office at Bhiwani in Haryana. Second accused is the Managing Director of that company. All the remaining accused are persons said to be associated with the first accused - company and they are all living in far distant places from Bhopal, some are in Haryana while some others are in Chandigarh and some others are in New Delhi. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons to the accused. It is not necessary to narrate what happened to the summons issued to the various accused except in the case of the second accused, because this appeal is now restricted to the order concerning the second accused who is arraigned as the second respondent in the special leave petition.

4. On 28.4.2000 the Trial Magistrate recorded that the notice issued to the second accused (Subhash Sahni) was received back with the report that he was not seen at his residence the address of which was shown on the notice. When other members of the said house refused to accept the notice it was affixed on the house. On the said circumstances the Magistrate issued bailable warrants to the accused. Second accused filed an application for exemption from personal appearance. Pending the same, the Magistrate ordered him to be released on bail if arrested and directed him to be present in the court for the purpose of furnishing security by executing a bond for Rs. 5,000/-.

5. All the accused filed a revision petition before the sessions court against the order passed by the Magistrate on 28.4.2000. Learned Sessions Judge (Shri. Ranjit Singh, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal) minuted that the Advocate for the second accused had given an undertaking that he shall appear before the trial Court on behalf of his client. After recording the above submission made by the Advocate the Sessions Judge passed an order the operative part of which is as follows:

"From the analysis of evidence above (sic) it is clear that the impugned order of the trial court is not in accordance with law. Thus, the question under consideration is decided in negative. On the basis of the aforesaid analysis I reach a conclusion that the impugned order of the trial court being not in accordance with law does not deserve to be maintained. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order of the trial court dated 28.4.2000 is set aside."

6. When he set aside the order of the Magistrate dated 28.4.2000, what should the Magistrate do thereafter as against second accused? We could not discern it, and we can imagine the dilemma of the Magistrate as to the course to be adopted thereafter. If a Sessions Judge chooses to pass such a vague and confusing order what could the subordinate court do. The confusion got confounded when the Sessions judge set aside the order of the Magistrate without substituting with any other direction or order and consequently the stage was set in a quandary. It was the said order which the respondent-complainant challenged before the High Court. But the confused situation was not defused by the High Court as learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of the Sessions Court.

7. Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi, learned senior Counsel for the appellant/comp