Advocates Appeared:
Amrut Joshi a/w Yazad Udwadia i/by Jugal Kanani
Advocate for the Applicants
Adv. Naresh Jain, Adv. Neha Anchlia Advocate for the Respondent
No. 2
Ms. Sangeeta E. Phad APP to Respondent-State

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The trial court has the authority to proceed with a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even in the absence of the accused, provided that the circumstances justify such a course of action. The proceedings under Section 138 are quasi-criminal in nature, which influences procedural requirements (!) (!) (!) .

2. The principle of natural justice generally mandates that the accused be given an opportunity to be heard, including the opportunity to explain evidence against them. However, this right can be waived if the accused persistently absents themselves from the proceedings (!) (!) .

3. The facts of the case involve accused issuing cheques that were dishonoured, leading to prosecution. The accused initially appeared but later remained absent, even after bail was furnished. The evidence was recorded in their absence, and the trial culminated in conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The courts below upheld the conviction despite the absence of the accused and the non-recording of their statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellate court emphasized the accused's conduct of not appearing on multiple occasions and their failure to rebut the presumption of guilt (!) (!) (!) .

5. The legal question centers on whether the trial court was justified in proceeding without the accused's presence and without recording their statement under Section 313, especially considering the quasi-criminal nature of Section 138 proceedings (!) (!) .

6. The law provides for certain provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code that allow for the trial to proceed in the absence of the accused, especially when they have absconded or persistently remain absent. The court can also dispense with the recording of the accused's statement if justified by circumstances, such as repeated absence and failure to take steps to secure their presence (!) (!) (!) (!) .

7. The recording of evidence must generally be done in the presence of the accused, but exceptions exist, such as when the accused is absent and has not been brought before the court despite efforts. The court's discretion is exercised based on factors like the number of times the accused has remained absent, efforts to secure their presence, and reasons for their absence (!) (!) .

8. The proceedings under Section 138 are considered to have a hybrid nature—both civil and criminal—aimed at expeditiously recovering amounts owed, with the overarching objective of protecting the interests of the victim while maintaining procedural efficiency (!) (!) (!) .

9. The courts have recognized that the mandatory recording of the Section 313 statement may be dispensed with in cases where the accused's persistent absence is justified, and where their conduct indicates waiver of the right to be personally present and to cross-examine witnesses (!) (!) .

10. The judgment emphasizes that the power to proceed in the absence of the accused and dispense with their statement is exercised cautiously, considering factors such as the number of absences, efforts to secure presence, and reasons for absence. Such discretion is justified when the circumstances warrant it (!) (!) (!) .

11. The nature of proceedings under Section 138 is primarily aimed at speedy disposal and recovery of dues, which supports the courts' authority to proceed without the accused's presence in certain circumstances, without violating principles of natural justice (!) (!) .

12. The final order dismisses the revision applications, confirming the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial and appellate courts. The amount deposited is ordered to be paid to the complainant, and the interim stay is vacated (!) (!) .

In summary, the legal framework permits courts to proceed with trials under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the absence of the accused, especially when their repeated absences and conduct justify such action. The courts must exercise discretion based on factual circumstances, balancing procedural safeguards with the objective of speedy justice.