IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.328 OF 2010 KAMAL VIJENDRA, SON OF RAJENDRA PRAAD RESIDENT OF 201 RAGHAVENDRA APARTMENT, DEVI ASTHAN ROAD, PUNAICHAK, PATNA VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, SON OF RABINDRA BAHADUR SINGH, RESIDENT OF 32, VASANT BIHAR COLONY, BORING ROAD, PATNA- 800001 …………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** 2 04/05/2010 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna in Complaint Case No. 1983 of 2005 by which he has rejected the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 29.03.2007 under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The allegations are that the petitioner has committed the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 420, 406 & 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has taken cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and issued summons against the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the Nokia Service Centre and as such he needs to travel outside Patna for 2 the purpose of his business. It is not the case of the petitioner that he is a salesman of the said Centre, which would required that he should travel out of Patna for the different purposes. In any event, the Court cannot give direction under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a person accused in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Counsel has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Abhay Kumar singh vs. The State of Bihar and Another reported in 2006 (30 PLJR 126. In this case, the Corut allowed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner finding that the petitioner was involved in a petty offence under Section 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and because the petitioner was a Salesman. The facts of this case are somewhat different as mentioned above. It is also submitted that in the case of Manish Gai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 822, this Court had allowed the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the Managing Director of M/s Ajay Products, Katni, a private limited company at Madhya Pradesh. This Court had taken into account that the petitioner was a business and was residing at Madhya Pradesh and, therefore, held that the petitioner 3 was entitled for the protection under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being a businessman and also because of the reason that the trial would take sometime to be concluded. The facts of both the aforesaid persons differs to the present case, as the petitioner lives at Patna and once he has appeared, he would always have the liberty to file an application under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for exemption from personal appearance on grounds which are reasonable. I find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)