[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2444 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.114 OF 2007 WITH CRIMINAL W.P.NO.2445 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.115 OF 2007 Phoolchand Hastimal Jain ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Ramesh Pandey & Associates for petitioner Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 DATE : DECEMBER 8, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 21.6.2007 in CC Nos.3497/SS/2007 and 3498/SS/2007, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 6th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai has convicted the applicant under Section 138 of [-2-] Negotiable Instruments Act. Being aggrieved thereby, he preferred criminal appeal Nos.114 and 155 of 2007. 3. In the said appeals, the applicant prayed for permanent exemption on the ground that he has been appointed as an Engineer at Chenai. On perusal of the letter dated 16.10.2008, it appears that he is deputed to attend Steel Company Ltd. Colombo for inspection. The letter does not indicate that he is appointed as an Engineer at Chenai. The appellant has been granted exemption from personal appearance on earlier dates by the Sessions Court. However, thereafter the appeals were fixed for judgment by the learned Sessions Judge on 8.10.2008. On that day, applications for exemption were preferred on behalf of the applicant on the ground that the appellant had gone to attend "Shradha". Said applications were allowed but the Sessions Court directed the learned Advocate for the appellant to see that the appellant must remain present on the next date. However, on 28.10.2008 the learned advocate for the appellant preferred applications for grant of permanent exemption from personal appearance to the appellant. In these [-3-] applications, it is mentioned that the appellant undertakes to remain present on the date of hearing and judgment of appeals. The learned Sessions Judge observed that on the last two dates, the matters have been fixed for judgment, however, the appellant was not remaining present before the Court nor was the advocate for the appellant ready to supply Chenai address of the appellant. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge rejected applications for permanent exemption and issued non-bailable warrants against the appellant. In view of above facts, I can find no fault with the orders of the learned Sessions Judge. The appellant has to remain present on the date when the judgment is pronounced. Matters before the Sessions Court are now being adjourned only for pronouncement of judgment. Hence, appellant has to remain present on the next date when the judgment will be pronounced. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner states that matters have been kept before the Sessions Court for pronouncement of judgment on 15.12.2008. On that day, the petitioner shall remain present before the Sessions Court. In view of this [-4-] statement, Non-bailable warrants issued against the petitioner are stayed till 15.12.2008. In case, the petitioner-appellant remains present before the Sessions Court on 15.12.2008, said non-bailable warrants shall stand cancelled. 6. Petitions are disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]