ORDER : Heard Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor takes notice for the Sate and opposed the application. 2. Sri V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.162/2016 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada; the case was posted for judgment to 24.05.2024; on that day, the accused did not appear due to health reasons and filed an application U/s.317 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to ‘Cr.P.C.’) to dispense with his presence; learned Magistrate dismissed the application, proceeded with pronouncement of judgment, found the accused guilty for the offence U/s.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘138 N.I.Act’) and accordingly, convicted him U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C.; learned Magistrate issued Non-bailable Warrant against the petitioner/accused for his production before the Court on hearing quantum of sentence as per law, for imposing sentence for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act. 3. Later, the petitioner filed application on 29.05.2024 vide Crl.M.P.No.1940/2024, U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the warrant. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.05.2024, dismissed the sad application for the reasons stated in the order. 4. The petitioner again filed another application vide Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the warrant, and the learned Magistrate dismissed the said application also, observing that High Court vide order in Crl.P.No.3898/2024, dated 25.06.2024 held that “petitioner is at liberty to appear before the trial Court and then the trial Court may hear him on sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law”, while dismissing the application filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that police are trying to execute the arrest warrant referred above, and the learned Magistrate dismissed the Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 mechanically without considering the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.3898/2024. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing State opposed the application, contended that undisputedly the learned Magistrate delivered judgment in the case i.e., C.C.No.162/2016 on 24.05.2024 and as per law, he convicted the accused U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act. 6. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing State opposed the application, contended that undisputedly the learned Magistrate delivered judgment in the case i.e., C.C.No.162/2016 on 24.05.2024 and as per law, he convicted the accused U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act. The Magistrate shall hear the accused on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate order on quantum of sentence; In those circumstances, and also in view of the dismissal of Crl.P.No.3898/2024 filed by the accused U/s.438 Cr.P.C. with a direction to petitioner, to appear before the trial Court, and then the trial Court may hear him on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 rendered in Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 by the learned Magistrate, and the present criminal petition is not maintainable in law. 7. In the light of above rival contentions, the point for consideration in this petition is as under: “Whether the order dated 27.06.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 in C.C.162/2016 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge-cum-V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, is liable to be quashed as prayed for U/s.482 Cr.P.C.” 8. POINT: The undisputed facts in the case on hand are that the petitioner is an accused in C.C.162/2016 on the file of IV Addl.Senior Civil Judgecum- V Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. The said case was posted to judgment on 24.05.2024. On that day, the petitioner filed an application U/s.317 Cr.P.C. to dispense with his presence. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The said order was not challenged before any higher forum. The learned Magistrate pronounced the judgment on 24.05.2024, found the accused guilty for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act, convicted the accused U/s.255(2) Cr.P.C. for the said offence. Therefore, Magistrate to impose sentence on the accused, shall hear the accused on quantum of sentence. In that view of the matter, the presence of accused before the learned Magistrate is required. The application filed by the petitioner/accused to cancel the warrant U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.1940/2024 was dismissed by the learned Magistrate on 29.05.2024. The petitioner/accused filed Crl.P.No.3898/2024 on the file of this Court U/s.438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. It was also dismissed on 25.06.2024 with an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the trial Court and hen the trial Court may hear him on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law. 9. The petitioner/accused filed Crl.P.No.3898/2024 on the file of this Court U/s.438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. It was also dismissed on 25.06.2024 with an observation that the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the trial Court and hen the trial Court may hear him on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law. 9. Now, it appears that the petitioner without appearing before the learned Magistrate again filed application U/s.70(2) Cr.P.C. vide Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 27.06.2024, observing that the petitioner/accused failed to appear before the Court inspite of the above observations of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 10. The above facts and circumstances in the case makes it clear that this Court while dismissing the Crl.P.No.3898/2024 filed U/s.438 Cr.P.C., observed that the petitioner is at liberty to appear before the trial Court and then trial Court may hear him on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law. 11. This Court in the case of Dilip Kulkarni and others Vs. Bahadurmal Chowdary and sons and another, 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 171 held that “therefore, it seems imperative to hear the accused on the question of sentence even in summons cases or summary trial cases since no appropriate sentence can be passed without hearing the accused and in the absence of relevant criteria which make the sentence adequate and appropriate. For the above reasons, the accused shall be heard before passing the sentence in all criminal cases notwithstanding the procedure to be adopted in trying the said cases. Therefore, the Court below has not committed any illegality in adjourning the case to hear the accused on the question of sentence”. 12. In the light of above factual matrix and legal position, the petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate to answer questions on quantum of sentence, to enable the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on sentence, according to law for the offence U/s.138 N.I.Act. In those circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 rendered in Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 by the learned Magistrate, and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. In those circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.06.2024 rendered in Crl.M.P.No.2371/2024 by the learned Magistrate, and the Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered. 13. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. On such appearance, the learned Magistrate may hear him on quantum of sentence and pass appropriate orders according to law. Till then, the Non-bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner/accused shall stand suspended. On passing sentence, the petitioner is at liberty to file necessary application U/s.389(1) Cr.P.C. On filing such application, the learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same on the same day, as per law. If the petitioner fails to appear before the learned Magistrate as directed above, this order stands vacated automatically without recourse to the Court. The learned Magistrate may proceed as per law for execution of Non-bailable Warrant issued against the petitioner/accused. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.