2005 CRI. L. J. 2699 ::2005 AIR - Kant. H. C. R. 1306 ::(2005) 4 CurCriR 253 ::(2005) ILR (Kant) 2120 ::2005 (4) KantLJ 202 ::2005 (3) RecCriR 307 ::2005 (3) AllCriLR 446 ::(2005) 4 BankCas 130 ::2005 (4) Crimes 61 ::2005 (2) KCCR 140

Karnataka High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. C. Kabbin , J

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.205— Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138— Personal appearance of accused - Exemption from - Prosecution under S.138 of N.I. Act - Petitioner/director of accused company seeking permanent exemption from appearance - Mere pendency of his application for exemption on grounds of inconvenience - Does not entitle him to remain absent - However, in view of fact that petitioner was co-operative with Court, exemption granted. In a criminal trial, the presence of the accused is necessary before the Court and a duty is cast upon him to be present before the Court on all dates except when he is exempted from personal appearance. The Court has to take into consideration the nature of the offence, the necessity of personal presence of the accused at the time of evidence and if satisfied, may exempt his presence. An accused cannot as a matter of right seek exemption from personal appearance. The Court has to consider the grounds for exemption and under facts and circumstances of the case, has to exercise its discretion judiciously and decide whether in that particular case, the accused may be granted exemption from personal appearance. Mere fact that an application for exemption has been filed does not give a right to the accused to remain absent and he cannot plead that his application for exemption was pending, to justify the abs....