9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1395X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are tried expeditiously and effectively. While interpreting Section 353(7)(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot forget that it deals with complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. The Apex Court, in the case of K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka [2015 (8) TMI 1139 - SUPREME COURT] was considering a case where the High Court decided the appeal arising out of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on merits in the absence of an advocate of the accused. On the other hand, the Apex Court distinguishing the judgment in the case of Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P. [1996 (7) TMI 562 - SUPREME COURT], held that the Appellate Court could decide a criminal appeal in the absence of counsel for the accused if the counsel remains absent deliberately or shows negligence in appearing. In the facts of the present case, it appears from the undisputed facts and material on record that the accused was consistently absent during the trial and at the stage of making oral submissions. The learned Magistrate granted the fair opportunity to the accused by adjourning the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner takes exception to the said judgment in the present writ petition. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment is in ignorance of Section 353(7) and (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, the accused's appearance on earlier dates and his conduct constrained the Magistrate to pronounce judgment on the scheduled date. Despite several opportunities granted to the accused, he chose not to remain present during arguments and on the date of judgment. In the absence of any party to the trial, the Magistrate is not powerless to pronounce the judgment in view of Sub-section (7) of Section 353 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in remitting the matter back to the learned Magistrate. 5. Per contra, the learned advocate for respondent No. 1 accused submitted that the accused could not remain present due to his ill health as he had been suffering from Brain Tumor since 2009. According to him, the Trial Court should have issued a warrant against the accused to secure his presence. He submitted that the defect of noncompliance with Section 353(6) of Code of Criminal Procedure is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders: (i) By delivering out the whole of the judgment; or (ii) By reading out the whole of the judgment; or (iii) By reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader. (2) Where the judgment is delivered under clause (a) of subsection (1), the presiding officer shall cause it to be taken down in short-hand, sign the transcript and every page thereof as soon as it is made ready, and write on it the date of delivery of the judgment in open Court. (3) Where the judgment or the operative part thereof is read out under clause (b) or clause (c) of sub-section (1), as the case may be, it shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court, and if it is not written with his own hand, every page of the judgment shall be signed by him. (4) Where the judgment is pronounced in the manner specified in clause (c) of sub-section (1), the whole judgment or a copy thereof shall be immediately made available for the perusal of the parties or their pleaders free of cost. (5) I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned with Sub-section 1 to 5. Sub-section 6 deals with the contingency where the accused is not in custody; it mandates that the Court calls upon the accused to attend a hearing when the judgment is being pronounced. However, the proviso to said sub-section creates an exception to the said provisions, which dispenses with the presence of the accused in a situation where there is more than one accused and to prevent undue delay in the disposal of the case. Accordingly, the Trial Court is permitted to pronounce the judgment notwithstanding the absence of the accused. 10. Sub-section 7 of Section 353 protects the Trial Court's acts to pronounce a judgment in the absence of any party or pleader. Sub-section (7), in clear terms, states that the judgment delivered by the Criminal Court in the absence of a party shall not be invalid by reason of the absence of the party. 11. Generally, it is true that the presence of the accused at the time of delivery of judgment under the Code of Criminal Procedure is necessary because of the Principle of Natural Justice that no person should be condemned unheard. However, when such a person is regulated by procedural statute, the Court is bound ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nstruments is strengthened. The endeavour of the legislature, while amending the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is to ensure expeditious disposal of a complaint involving dishonour of cheque. Introduction to Section 143(a), 148 is one of such steps taken by the legislature to ensure that the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, are tried expeditiously and effectively. While interpreting Section 353(7)(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot forget that it deals with complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. 14. The Apex Court, in the case of K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2013) 3 SCC 721 was considering a case where the High Court decided the appeal arising out of conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on merits in the absence of an advocate of the accused. On the other hand, the Apex Court distinguishing the judgment in the case of Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1996) 4 SCC 720, held that the Appellate Court could decide a criminal appeal in the absence of counsel for the accused if the counsel remains absent deliberately or shows negligence in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
