IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

Crl.R.C.Nos.993 and 994 of 2015

Amul Gabrani ... Petitioner in CrlOP 993 of 2015

Ajay Kumar Bisnoi

... Petitioner in CrlOP 994 of 2015

Versus

M/s.KEI Industries Limited,

rep. by its Authorized representative,

Mr.Kishore Kunal,

D-90, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-I,

New Delhi-110 020.

... Respondent in both petitions

Prayer: Petitions are filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.,

against the orders, dated 11.8.2015 passed in dispensing the personal

appearance of the petitioner in Crl.M.P.Nos.1922 and 1923 of 2015 in

C.C.Nos.305 of 2015 pending on the file of the Fast Track Court-II,

Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.

For Petitioners

: Mr.N.R.Elango, S.C. for

M/s.RRN Legal

COMMON ORDER

The respondent/complainant herein has filed petitions under

Sections 200 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners herein before the Fast

Tract Court-II/Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for punishing them

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for having committed

dishonour of cheques. The said complaint were taken on file by the

trial Court as C.C.Nos.1922 and 1923 of 2015. Pending trial of the

said petitions, the petitioners moved petitions under Section 205

Cr.P.C., praying to dispense with the personal appearance for the

reasons that they are busy businessmen and frequently travel abroad

and also to look after day today affairs of their company and to

permit their counsel Mr.R.Aneesan to appear and represent on their

behalf on all hearing dates.

2. By orders, dated 11.8.2015 in Crl.M.P.Nos.1922 and 1923 of

2015, the Court below has dismissed the petitions, on the ground that

the petitioners were absent on previous hearing dates and their

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

counsel appeared and filed petitions under Section 317 Cr.P.C., and

the present petitions to dispense with the personal attendance were

filed only with an intent to prolong the case and hence, not

maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come

forward with the present petitions.

3. Mr.N.R.Elango, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners would contend that Sections 251 and 205(1) make it clear

that in appropriate cases, the Magistrate can allow the accused to

make even the first appearance through a counsel and the learned

Magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when

his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where

the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. He also

pointed out that the Magistrate can, in his discretion, direct the

personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings

and therefore, it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his

judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an

accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such

proceedings. He pointed out that this discretion vested in the

Magistrate will have to be exercised liberally on the relevant facts.

However, the learned Magistrate, without considering the bona fide

reasons specified by the petitioners for their inability to make

appearance before the Court, has simply dismissed the petitions with

a view that the petitions were filed with an intention to prolong the

case. He also submitted that when the accused makes an application

to the Magistrate through his duly authorised counsel, praying for

affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with,

the Magistrate ought to have considered all the aspects and passed

the appropriate orders, which was not done in the present case. With

these contentions, the learned senior counsel sought for setting

aside the orders of the Court below and urged to dispense with the

personal attendance of the petitioners. In support of his

contention