JUDGMENT
K. Sreedhar Rao, J.
1. All these petitions are considered together for passing a common order since a common question of law and fact is involved. Under the present petitions, the petitioner contends that he is facing prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in several places and in particular at Bangalore, in more than 850 cases in different courts.
2. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.K. Jain v. Union of India counsel contends that the petitioner is prepared to give the undertaking as envisaged under ratio and thus prays for exemption under Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code from his regular appearance on all the hearing dates.
3. The petitioner submits that he is the director of the company. Therefore, under Section 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeks an exemption. The facts of the decision of the Supreme Court indicate that the innumberable prosecutions launched against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were sought to be quashed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the petitioner is unable to go to different courts, where the cases are pending. Considering the practical hardships, the Supreme Court laid down the ratio granting exemption from personal appearance on the following conditions :
“(1) A counsel on his behalf would be present in the particular court on days when his case is taken up.
(2) He will not dispute his identity as the accused in the case.
(3) He will be present in court when such presence is imperatively needed.”
4. On the similar lines, the petitioner seeks an exemption under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Needless to say that the provisions of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked when there are explicit provisions of law, which permit grant of such concession. The petitioner is prosecuted as a director of the company along with the company and in the individual capacity also he is prosecuted under the provisions of Sections 205 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code, invest discretion of the magistrate to grant permanent conditional exemptions during trial.
5. I find from the pleadings and submissions made at the Bar, no such request has been made before the trial court without exhausting the remedy available before the trial court, directly the petition is filed before this court. In the face of alternative remedies, not being exhausted, entertaining petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not arise. The petitioner is at liberty to move the trial court seeking exemption under Sections 205 and 305 of the Criminal Procedure Code depending upon the result, if need be, he can approach this court afresh.
6. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed.