Cheque dishonour trials may proceed despite absconding accused, and Section 313 examination can be dispensed with in suitable cases.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, persistent and unjustified absence of the accused may justify the trial court in continuing the evidence and proceeding with the trial, even though Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code generally contemplates evidence in the presence of the accused or pleader. The same approach may support dispensing with examination under Section 313 CrPC where the accused deliberately avoids proceedings, because that provision is meant to serve a meaningful opportunity of explanation and is not to be applied mechanically in a special, summary and quasi-criminal proceeding. The stated approach reflects the special statutory scheme and the need for expeditious disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court can proceed with the evidence and continue the trial when the accused and counsel remain absent. (ii) Whether the trial court can dispense with the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in such circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the trial court can proceed with the evidence and continue the trial when the accused and counsel remain absent.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act is distinct from the ordinary criminal trial model. While Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code generally requires evidence to be taken in the presence of the accused or his pleader, the Court held that this protection cannot be read in isolation where the accused, after entering appearance, repeatedly absents himself, does not seek dispensation of personal attendance, and is not represented through counsel. The nature of a cheque dishonour case was treated as quasi-criminal and summary in character, and the Court considered the repeated absence of the accused, the lack of cross-examination, and the inability to secure attendance despite permissible steps.

Conclusion: The trial court was justified in proceeding further in the absence of the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the trial court can dispense with the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code in such circumstances.

Analysis: Section 313 serves the purpose of enabling the accused to explain the incriminating circumstances, but the Court held that the provision is not to be applied mechanically in every cheque dishonour prosecution where the accused deliberately avoids the proceedings. Reading Section 313 alongside the special procedure under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and drawing support from the quasi-criminal nature of Section 138 proceedings, the Court concluded that insistence on a mandatory personal examination in every such case would defeat the legislative object of expeditious disposal. The Court therefore held that where the accused remains absent without justification and the court has considered the relevant factors, the statement under Section 313 may be dispensed with.

Conclusion: The trial court could dispense with the Section 313 examination in the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were upheld, and the revisions were rejected because no illegality was found in the conduct of the trial or in the appellate affirmation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a Section 138 prosecution, persistent and unjustified absence of the accused may justify continuation of the trial and dispensation of the Section 313 examination, having regard to the special statutory scheme and the quasi-criminal character of the proceeding.

---