B. Kemal Pasha, J.

1. Ext. P4 order, by which the court below has found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable under S. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and has imposed a sentence of fine of Rs. 14 lakhs, is under challenge. According to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions contained under S.265B(4) Cr.P.C. as the court has failed to examine the petitioner in camera in the absence of the complainant.

2. On going through Ext. P4 order, it does not say as to whether the petitioner was examined by the court below in camera, in the absence of the complainant in the case. It is a mandatory procedure contemplated under law that in case of plea bargaining the accused shall be examined by the court below in camera, in the absence of the complainant or the de facto complainant. The said provision is incorporated for the absolute satisfaction of the court that in case of plea bargaining there was no compulsion or insistence from the part of the complainant or the de facto complainant as the case may be, on the accused to force a settlement. It is in order to avoid the possibility of any such compulsion or pressure ta