Can there be a criminal offence involving no moral turpitude at all? Is the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act one such offence? Is a person accused of an offence, in which moral contumaciousness is not significant, entitled to a more humane and less onerous trial procedure? Should an accused facing indictment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be compelled to endure the tedium and trauma of a regular elaborate criminal trial? Is it possible for the system to simplify procedure and achieve the legislative goals without inflicting such unnecessary inconvenience and difficulties on the indictee atleast in such less serious crimes? These questions are thrown up in this case where the petitioner, a woman, laments that she, who faces indictment under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is entitled to a fairer deal from the system.

2. The petitioner, a woman in her late forties, a housewife who has her husband employed abroad having two children - a son and a daughter studying for the engineering course and the B.A.M.S course, and a permanent resident of Alappuzha has received summons from the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Hosdurg wherein she has been called upon to appear in person to face the indictment. She submits that she is innocent. The cheque has been misused. The petitioner complains that she is unable to proceed all the way to that distant court. She prays that she may be exempted from personal appearance and her counsel may be permitted to represent her and conduct the case. The counsel on her behalf submits that there is urgent need of general directions under Sections 482 or 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to save the petitioner as well as others similarly placed, from their predicament of being compelled to appear in person before court, getting enlarged on bail, executing bonds with sureties, personal appearance on all dates of posting, appearance for examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C and ultimately to receive judgment. The counsel contends that it is not necessary for a humane and user friendly system to resort to such cumbersome procedure. It is prayed that directions may be issued which will help the petitioner as well as many others similarly placed facing identical predicament to save them of the unnecessary pain inflicted on them by such mindless injustice -of beaten track procedural hassles, trammels and trappings.

3. The contentions raised did appear to me to be impressive. Detailed arguments were heard in identical cases also in which the same question had arisen for consideration. Adv.Sri.G.Priyadarsan Thampi appearing for the petitioner has advanced this contention with conviction. Sri.N.Ratheesh who appears in a similar matter W.P.C 20721/2007 has also advanced his arguments. Perceiving the need for assistance of an amicus curiae Sri.S.Rajeev, a promising young counsel was requested to assist the Court. Detailed arguments have been advanced. All counsel pray that directions may be issued which shall bind all courts so that procedure in the trial of 138 (and similar) cases in the State can be simplified and indictees can be saved of the unnecessary and avoidable trauma and tedium.

4. First of all the learned counsel have drawn my attention to various precedents having a bearing on the question. I shall advert to them specifically later if and when necessary. But it must now be stated that my attention has been drawn to the following binding precedents.

1. M/s.Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. M/s.Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others [2001(3) KLT 307 SC]

2. Helen Rubber Industries & Others v. State of Kerala & Others [1972 KLT 794]

3. Dinesan v. Baby [1981 KLT SN 65 Case No.120]

4. Mathew v. State of Kerala [1986 KLT 128]

5. Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu [1993(2) KLT 889]

6. Raman Nair v. State of Kerala1999(3) KLT 714

7. Alice George vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police [2003(1)KLT 339]

8. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala [2007(3) KLT SN 48