Neeraj Agarwal vs Umashanker Sharma And Ors

These miscellaneous petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the Trial Court dated 13.6.2019 whereby the bail bonds were forfeited of the accused petitioners and directions were issued to initiate proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. and they were directed to be produced by arrest warrants as they did not present themselves before the court on that date.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were represented through their counsel and as per the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a person who is accused, can represent himself or appear through counsel and his personal presence is not necessarily required on each date. Moreover, the petitioners had moved an application for dispensing with their personal attendance. However learned trial court has rejected the said application solely on the ground that amount of 20% as directed as interim compensation in terms of amendment made under Section 143 A was not deposited. Learned counsel submits that as the law relating to deposit of interim compensation has been set up by making it prospective and in the present cases the cheque dishonoured is prior to the amendment made under Section 143 A, it was not necessary for the petitioners to deposit the interim compensation and this court has already decided the other miscellaneous petitions listed before this court today and has dispensed with the said requirement therein. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners shall be ready to present themselves on all dates as directed from time to time by the court and will also co-operate in disposal of the cases.

I have considered the submissions and find that this court had stayed the execution of the arrest warrant and also stayed the further proceedings in the court below.

Keeping in view the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the law as laid down in G.J. Raja Versus Tejraj Surana, AIR 2019 SC 3817, this court finds that learned Magistrate has fallen in error in rejecting the application for dispensing with personal attendance of the petitioners and there was no reason to issue arrest warrant and forfeit bail bonds. Thus, the order passed by the learned Magistrate is accordingly set aside. The order passed in revision rejecting the revision application is accordingly set aside. The trial court shall now proceed with the matter and expeditiously dispose of the cases as already directed in the other miscellaneous petitions decided today.

Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of. All pending application shall stand disposed of.

A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.