JUDGMENT Jay Sengupta, J. - The revisional applications, being CRR 181 of 2020 and CRR 3562 of 2019, which pertain to the same proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are taken up together for hearing. 2. Affidavits of service filed on behalf of the respective petitioners are taken on record. 3. Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/complainant in CRR 3562 of 2019 and for the complainant/opposite party no.2 in CRR 181 of 2020, submits as follows. The petitioner/complainant has initiated the impugned proceeding in February, 2018. Although an application under Section 205 of the Code was allowed in respect of the individual accused, subsequently they absented themselves and tried to delay the proceeding. In fact, the prayer under Section 205 of the Code was allowed on the very same day the application was filed. Due to their absence, a warrant of arrest had to be issued. The recall of warrant of arrest behind the back of the complainant ought to be set aside. 4. Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite parties in CRR 3562 of 2019 and for the petitioners in CRR 181 of 2020, submits as follows. The accused were actually not absent on so many dates as alleged. The accused were granted the benefit of Section 205 of the Code earlier. Although this Court had passed an order dated 5th December, 2019 in CRR 3562 of 2019 granting liberty to the learned trial court to initiate all coercive measures to ensure the attendance of the accused, the learned trial court was not justified in issuing warrant of arrest without going through the facts of the case properly and that too, when the matter was taken up for hearing on a put up petition filed on behalf of the complainant. 5. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties and have perused the revision petitions. 6. It appears that on a few occasions the accused persons were absent. However, it is also true that they were granted the benefit of Section 205 of the Code earlier and on 7th September, 2019 the warrant of arrest issued earlier was actually recalled. As such, it was not necessary to issue a warrant of arrest on 7th January, 2020 when the matter was taken up for hearing at the behest of the complainant by a put up petition. As such, it was not necessary to issue a warrant of arrest on 7th January, 2020 when the matter was taken up for hearing at the behest of the complainant by a put up petition. 7. Be that as it may, what is required is that the proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is concluded within the stipulated time. 8. In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I set aside the warrant of arrest issued against the accused nos. 2, 3 and 4. They are permitted to appear through their learned advocate under Section 205 of the Code in terms of the order dated 28.06.2018 unless the order granting such benefit is violated at any point. 9. The learned trial court is requested to conclude the impugned proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties, preferably within six months from the next date of hearing. 10. With these observations, both the revisional applications, being CRR 181 of 2020 and CRR 3562 of 2019, are disposed of. 11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.