Accused's presence in criminal trial is mandatory for evidence and section 313 examination unless law validly permits dispensation.

Criminal trial procedure under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused's presence for recording evidence unless the Code expressly permits a departure or personal attendance is validly dispensed with. The High Court noted that summons service alone does not justify an ex parte criminal trial; where the accused does not appear, the proper course is to secure attendance through coercive process rather than proceed to conviction in absence. It also stated that examination under section 313 CrPC cannot be omitted merely because the accused is absent, since that safeguard remains necessary unless a valid basis for dispensation exists. The convictions were set aside and the matters remanded for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be tried and evidence recorded in the absence of the accused without first securing his presence by coercive process or valid dispensation of personal appearance. (ii) Whether the accused's examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be dispensed with in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be tried and evidence recorded in the absence of the accused without first securing his presence by coercive process or valid dispensation of personal appearance.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of criminal trial requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused, subject only to express statutory exceptions. Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that evidence be taken in the accused's presence, and the only general departure recognised was where personal attendance is dispensed with or where the Code expressly permits otherwise. The directions in Indian Bank Association did not authorise an ex parte criminal trial merely because summons had been served. Where the accused does not appear, the proper course is to secure presence through warrant and proclamation rather than proceed to conviction in absentia. The summary-trial framework under section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not override these basic criminal procedure requirements.

Conclusion: The trial in the absence of the accused was impermissible, and the conviction could not be sustained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused's examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could be dispensed with in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Dispensation of section 313 examination is not automatic. The authorities relied upon below did not lay down that the accused's statement can be omitted merely because the accused remained absent. Basavaraj R. Patil contemplated only a substantial compliance mechanism where the accused had already been exempted from personal appearance and made a proper application showing genuine hardship. Section 313 remains an important procedural safeguard when incriminating evidence appears in the prosecution case, and speedy trial cannot justify skipping mandatory stages of the criminal process. The trial court and appellate court therefore misapplied the precedents and treated the accused's absence as a basis to bypass the statutory safeguard.

Conclusion: Dispensation of the accused's examination under section 313 was not justified on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were set aside, the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded for fresh disposal in accordance with law after following the proper criminal procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: In a criminal trial, evidence cannot be recorded and conviction cannot be entered in the absence of the accused unless the Code expressly permits it or personal attendance has been validly dispensed with, and section 313 examination cannot be omitted merely because the accused has not appeared.

---