Ltc Export India Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 15618 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5528/2021

Ltc Export India Pvt. Ltd., Through Premnarayan Kabra S/o Lt. Sh. Satish Malik, R/o Vile Parle, West Mumbai, (Maharashtra).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. M/s Fatehlal Chandmal And Sons, Through Sh. Vikas Maru S/o Lt. Sh. Hastimal Maru, Age About 38, R/o Fatehnagar Teh. Mavli, Dist. Udaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Tushar Moad
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Order

06/10/2021

1. The petitioner has preferred this miscellaneous petition

being aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2021 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli, District Udaipur whereby the

learned Magistrate has ordered for the personal appearance of the

petitioner.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is 82 years of age and his appearance could have been

marked by the Court on the virtual platform. It is further

contended that even if the petitioner stands convicted under

Section 138 of the NI Act, he is entitled to have his sentence

suspended under the provisions of Section 389 of Cr.P.C.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the contention.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-5528/2021]

4. It is contended that at the time when the bail bonds are

furnished there is a condition that the accused petitioner will

appear on all dates and as and when called by the Court. It is

further contended that the matter is listed for pronouncement of

judgment and presence of the accused is required when the

judgment is pronounced. It is further contended that even if the

sentence is suspended, the accused is required to furnish bail

bonds and for that his presence before the court is required.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. The cheque dishonour complaints are pending since 2013

and now the matter is listed for pronouncement of the judgment.

The presence of the accused is required at the time of

pronouncement of judgment, hence the impugned order cannot be

said to be contrary to law.

7. No ground is made our for exercising inherent powers. The

miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

8. The stay application stands disposed of.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ns. 45-1/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)