1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY : AURANGABAD BENCH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 653 OF 2009 Appa s/o. Tukaram Pawar, age 47 years, occu. service, R/o. Bhausaheb Hire Nagar, Satana, district Nashik. - - - Applicant versus Anil s/o. Vithalrao Bhosale, age 35 years, occu. business, R/o. Gautepatil Behind Arun Chandra Bar, Tuljapur, district Osmanabad. - - Respondents None present for the applicant. Shri K. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. Dated : 7th August 2009 PER COURT: 1. Counsel Shri Bhore absent for the applicant. Counsel Shri Kulkarni for sole respondent. Respondent is original applicant. He made a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable 2 Instruments Act popularly called as cheque bouncing case against the applicant/ accused. The applicant/ accused appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. He is a bank employee. He was represented by his lawyer. He made application for exemption purporting to be under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is at Exhibit B dated 27-11-2008. The said application was partly allowed by order dated 6-2-2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tuljapur. The operative order is reproduced below : 1. Application is partly allowed. 2. Accused shall remain present before the Court on the next date and furnish the bail. 3. After recording the plea of accused hehas exempted before Court till his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The said order is challenged before this Court. 3 Unfortunately, the Advocate for the applicant is absent. Still, matter was heard with the assistance of learned Counsel for the respondent who is complainant and is eager to prosecute the applicant/ accused in his complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tuljapur. 2. I have perused the impugned order and found that the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Tuljapur has accepted the request of accused and gave him exemption from personal appearance but through his Advocate till his statement is required to be recorded under section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the direction to the accused to remain present on the next date and furnish the bail has been challenged before this Court. The application for exemption can be independently decided and no bail can be insisted on for granting exemption in case accused is 4 represented by a lawyer and gives assurance to the Court of his availability and presence whenever directed. There is no record to show that applicant/ accused in this case failed to remain present but the direction is clear on the point of giving him exemption till his statement is recorded at the end of the trial. Therefore, such direction No.2 of the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is improper and, therefore, quashed and set aside. 3. After hearing Shri Kulkarni for the respondent, application of the applicant is allowed in terms of prayer (B) of his application. Said application is allowed and accordingly disposed of. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) pnk/cria65309