Supreme Court clarifies test for interlocutory orders, allows appeal, and permits fresh exemption application.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Sessions Judge's order that interfered with an interlocutory order related to a criminal complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court clarified the test for determining interlocutory orders and permitted the second accused to file a fresh application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the magistrate to decide on the application before further proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interference with an interlocutory order by the Sessions Judge.
2. Exemption from personal appearance of the accused.

Summary:

1. Interference with an Interlocutory Order:
The appellant company filed a criminal complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against 15 accused. The trial magistrate issued bailable warrants to the second accused after the notice was returned unserved. The second accused sought exemption from personal appearance, which was pending when the magistrate ordered his release on bail if arrested. All accused filed a revision petition before the Sessions Court against the magistrate's order. The Sessions Judge set aside the magistrate's order without providing any further direction, creating confusion for the trial magistrate. The High Court declined to interfere with the Sessions Judge's order. The Supreme Court noted that the interdict in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits revision against interlocutory orders, but the appellant did not raise this issue before the High Court. The Court referenced previous judgments to clarify the test for determining whether an order is interlocutory.

2. Exemption from Personal Appearance:
The second accused highlighted that the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not serious and that his presence would cause substantial hardship as he resides in Haryana. He relied on Section 317 of the Code, which allows the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused if it is not necessary in the interests of justice. The Supreme Court emphasized that the normal rule is to take evidence in the presence of the accused, but the court can dispense with personal attendance if the accused is represented by a pleader and the court is satisfied that it is in the interest of justice. The Court noted that the magistrate has the discretion to dispense with personal attendance in summons cases, provided the accused gives an undertaking regarding his identity and the presence of his counsel. The magistrate can also direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage if necessary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Sessions Judge's order, permitting the second accused to file a fresh application for exemption u/s 317 of the Code. The magistrate is to pass orders on such an application before proceeding further.

---