JUDGMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner, who is an accused in criminal case No.180/2012 filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved by order dated 12.02.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Chomu whereby trial Judge rejected the representation of the petitioner filed under Section 317 Cr.P.C on the ground that sufficient cause for non-appearance is not disclosed therein. The Trial Judge further cancelled the bail bond and issued bailable warrant of arrest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order would reveal that complainant was also not present on 12.02.2020. Application filed by the complainant to condone absence was accepted by the court below. In absence of the complainant, certainly there was no question of progress in the trial. Moreover if the court below was not satisfied with the reasons of absence of petitioner, it should have followed the mandate of provisions of Section 317 Cr.P.C. before cancelling the bail bond and issuance of warrant of arrest. 4. Provisions of section 317 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- 317 "(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately." 5. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer of the petitioner, however does not dispute that prior to the passing of the impugned order, there was no direction of personal appearance of petitioner before the court below. 6. Learned counsel for the State-respondent opposed the prayer of the petitioner, however does not dispute that prior to the passing of the impugned order, there was no direction of personal appearance of petitioner before the court below. 6. Therefore, there is non compliance of mandate of Section 317 Cr.P.C. If the Magistrate was of the view that representation of the accused was not fit to be allowed on any date fixed in the case, it ought to have issued direction for personal appearance of accused first and in the event of non-compliance of direction, the court could have taken recourse to cancellation of bail bond. 7. I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner because on 12.02.2020 there was an application of the petitioner accused under Section 317 Cr.P.C. for allowing him to be represented by his pleader. The provision is for some purpose and not for fun. If the complainant was not present and the trial was not taking any progress, the trial Judge should not have compelled physical appearance of the accused which amounts to unnecessary harassment of the accused specially when the trial is lingering for the latches on the part of prosecution. 8. Consequently the impugned order and all subsequent action in pursuance of the impugned order stands hereby quashed and it is directed that petitioner shall appear before the court below on the next date fixed in the case and appearance be treated as appearance of an accused already on bail. 9. Accordingly petition stands allowed.