DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY 

VISAKHAPATNAM, A. P., INDIA.  

 
 
PROJECT TITLE: 
DISPENSING WITH PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF ACCUSED PERSON
 
SUBJECT: 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
 
NAME OF THE FACULTY: 
ASST.PROF. SOMA BHATTACHARJYA
 
NAME OF THE STUDENT: 
SAHAL SHAJAHAN 
 
ROLL NO: 
18LLB131 
 
SEMESTER – IV
SECTION – B 
 
 
 
 
 
 

1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: 
 
I am highly indebted to my Hon’ble Cr.P.C Asst.Prof. Soma Bhattacharjya, for giving me a wonderful
opportunity to work on the topic: “ Dispensing with Personal Attendance of Accused Person”, and it is
because of her excellent knowledge, experience and guidance, this project is made with great interest
and effort. I would also take this as an opportunity to thank my parents for their support at all times. I
have no words to express my gratitude to each and every person who has guided and suggested me
while conducting my research work. 

2
SYNOPSIS
The provision for “Dispensing with Personal Attendance of Accused person from Court
Proceedings” is mainly given in sections 205 and 317 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Section 205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused. – 1. Whenever a
Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance
of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.

2. But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the
proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in
the manner hereinbefore provided."
317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. – 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.

The presence of the accused person is necessary during the trial of any case for the examination
of the person according to section 313 of Cr.P.C These provisions are an exception to the mentioned
procedure, which is made for the welfare of the people and easement of the judicial functions. The
accused can easily avail this this exception for summons cases or petty cases. Instead the accused can
represent himself through a lawyer. In warrant cases it is not that easy as the serious of warrant cases is
intense and such an exception can be misused by people. So for availing the exception in warrant cases
the court should be convinced with explanation of the excuse the accused person gives and it is
completely the judge’s discretion. And whenever required the judge can summon the accused to the
court if necessary. The court always believes that even if a sinner escapes from the eyes of law, an
innocent should never get punished. So the presence is made mandatory in grave issued cases.

3
OBJECTIVE OF STUDY:
The study briefly describes about the exemptions that court makes in order to make court proceedings
be easy for common people and the decorum of the court be maintained by not letting accused, who
may cause tension among the people who enter the court. It shows that it’s the complete discretion of
the Judge. Section 317 of Cr.PC gives this power to the judge.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
 Whether dispensing with personal attendance of an accused person is applicable for all cases?
 If in case the accused person is given the permission for absence and later the presence is
required, then can the court summon him?
 Can the accused person represent him by a lawyer?

LITERATURE REVIEW:

The book “Law Relating to Criminal Trials along with Powers and Duties of Courts and
Functions of Police and Prosecuting Agencies” written by B. Malik, Revised by Justice M.C. Desai &
Adv.R.Mitra & assistants, Published by Law Publishers, Allahabad in the year 1985 gives a real good
picture and explanation of the way a crime is dealt from the beginning stage of recording of
information to the last stage of punishing of the offender and giving justice to the victim. The sections
explained in the book shows the general procedures and the exceptions made for special cases. The
books title itself gives a summary of its content. This has been really good helping guide for
researchers of all ages and levels of profession because of the eloquent language used and way of
explanation.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
The researcher has used doctrinal and analytical method of research. The researcher has
confined his study to various books related to criminal law and other relevant sources
mentions in the sources of study.
i. The Nature of study: The legal research on the provision also has research on the social
background of the purpose of the provision and also the prevention of the misuse of the
provision. As the details of sections were thoroughly researched and review written it can
also be considered as doctrinal and analytical study.

4
 ii. The sources of study:
i. Primary Sources:
i) “Law Relating to Criminal Trials along with Powers and Duties of Courts
and Functions of Police and Prosecuting Agencies” a book written by B.
Malik, Revised by Justice M.C. Desai & Adv.R.Mitra & assistants, Published
by Law Publishers, Allahabad in the year 1985.
ii) Bare Act of Code of Criminal Procedure
ii. Secondary sources: “Dispensing with Personal Attendance of Accused Person”, an
online article and www.legalcrystal.com, a website

SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

The scope of the project is limited to only criminal matters in India. Therefore the study only
provisions of Cr.PC and Indian Constitution.

Significance of Study:-
This study briefly explains about discretionary power of judge to conduct a court proceeding in the
absence of an accused person. This is significant because such a provision in Cr.PC will help a lot of
wrongly accused people, like children, women, illiterate, old men, etc who find it difficult to deal with
the court proceedings.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS:-

1. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................07

2. RELEVANT SECTIONS UNDER CODE.........................................................................................08

3. DUTY OF COURT IN RECORDING STATEMENT OF ACCUSED..............................................10

4. TRIAL CONDUCTED IN ABSENCE OF ACCUSED DUE TO ILL PHYSICAL HEALTH/

ILL MENTAL HEALTH.......................................................................................................................12

5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 205 & 317............................................................................13

6. SPECIAL PETITION FOR DISPENSING PERSON ATTENDANCE OF ACCUSED PERSON...14

7. CASE LAWS.......................................................................................................................................15

8. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................20

6
INTRODUCTION:-

The laws followed in our country has been taken from the best laid down rules from all over the world.
The basic structure was already made for our country during the time of British Raj. The British was
here from almost 1600 A.D and from then onwards for controlling the people and for proper
administration certain laws were made. These laws have been changed and updated in the coming years
as per the change in the social, economical and poltical ideas of the people and government.

For the people living in the country, in order to bring peace and order in the social lives of the people
certain laws were made. The Code of Criminal Procedure was first made in 1898, which is almost five
decades before Independence. The same code was followed for almost 25 years even after
independence. Then the whole code was repealed and a new code was made in 1973. The new code
was also based on the former code, the laws were ammended and certain new laws were added to it.
This is The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The code mentions all the procedures to be followed
when a crime which results in punishments like fine, imprisonment and life sentence takes place. It
says the role of citizens, government officers and the judicial officers.

The citizens are responsible for reporting any kind of violation or infringement of a person's right, law,
regulation or contract, or physical/mental injury, to the government officials i.e the police officers or
magistrate. The Judiciary is supposed to give justice to the victims of the crime. The Judiciary's
procedure of discussing the facts, laws and evidences takes place in a Court Trial. In a Court Trial there
is a Prosecution side, Defense side and the Magistrate or Judge listens to both the parties and gives the
judgement. The prosecution is normally the Victims side and the defense is accused persons side.

Normally the accused person is present from the commencement to the judgement of the trial
proceedings. The accused is summoned to the court in petty cases by sending summons in that person’s
name and in grave crimes a warrant is issued for the accused person and the investigating officers are
supposed to bring the accused to the court for trial proceedings.

The project is about a provision given by criminal procedure code which allows dispensing of personal
attendance of the accused person from the trial proceedings of the court. It is the complete discretion of
magistrate or the judge who is presiding the court proceeding.

7
RELEVANT SECTIONS UNDER CODE:

Chapter XVI, Commencement of Proceedings Before Magistrates –

Section 205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused. – 1. Whenever a
Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance
of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.

2. But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the
proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in
the manner hereinbefore provided."

206. Special summons in cases of petty offence.

(1) If, in the opinion of a Magistrate taking cognizance of a petty offence, the case may be summarily
disposed of under section 260, the Magistrate shall, except where he is, for reasons to be recorded in
writing of a contrary opinion, issue summons to the accused requiring him either to appear in person or
by pleader before the Magistrate on a specified date, or if he desires to plead guilty to the charge
without appearing before the Magistrate, to transmit before the specified date, by post or by
messenger to the Magistrate, the said plea in writing and the amount of fine specified in the summons
or if he desires to appear by pleader and to plead guilty to the charge through such pleader, to authorise,
in writing, the pleader to plead guilty to the charge on his behalf and to pay the fine through such
pleader: Provided that the amount of the fine specified in such summons shall not exceed one hundred
rupees.

(2) For the purposes of this section," petty offence" means any offence punishable only with fine not
exceeding one thousand rupees, but does not include any offence so punishable under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1939 (4of 1939), or under any other law which provides for convicting the accused
person in his absence on a plea of guilty,

(3) The State Government may, by notification, specially empower any Magistrate to exercise the
powers conferred by sub- section (1) in relation to any offence which is compoundable under section
320 or any offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or with fine,
or with both where the Magistrate is of opinion that, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the imposition of fine only would meet the ends of justice.

8
Chapter XXIV, General Provisions as to Enquiries and Trials -

317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. – 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.

These sections laid down in the code of criminal procedure gives provision for an accused person to
deal his/her case with the help of a lawyer and can stay away from being physically present in the court
for the trial. This provision is made in order to give justice to people wringly accused to save their
personal image in front of the public and also to save the important time of certain people from being
wasted for petty cases they are involved in. But the judiciary should be careful for these provisions
given for the welfare of the people from being misused. That is completely in the hands of the
presiding magistarte or judge, that is why complete discretion is given to the magistrate or judge in
dispensing with the personal attendance of an accused person from the trial proceedings.

9
DUTY OF COURT IN RECORDING STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-

The presiding judges while examining the accused persons under section 313 of the criminal procedure
code must be on caution to see, that each and every circumstance appearing against the accused from
the prosecution evidence must be seperately and distinctly put to the accused so as to enable the
accused to explain the said circumstances. This statutorily prescribed obligation on the part of the
judges conducting the trial must be scrupulously discharged , otherwise the accused would innocently
give false answers to the questions put to him by the presiding judges or he may not be able to give any
answers at all. This part of the trial is of utmost importance, and if as a result of any inadvertence or on
account of undue haste on the part of the judges in the zeal of completing the trial soon, if the
examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C is not properly done in the true and fair spirit,
the possibility of trial court doing injustice cannot be ruled out. If the accused lies about any facts of the
case or tries to hide any truth, whioch will be recorded under sec.313 of Cr.P.C in cases of
circumstancial evidence, the same maybe used as missing links.

*This duty of the court in recording the accused persons statements is really necessary in the trial
proceedings. Just like a coin has two sides, even justice for the people also has two sides.

In a case, the victim can get justice by punishing the accused person for the lose he caused to the victim
and for the crime the accused person has committed. At the same time if a wrong accusition is being
charged on a a person then the justice would be acquiting the accused person from the wrong accusition
the person is been charged for.

Here comes the role of the provision of Dispensing the Personal Attendance of an Accused Person.

317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases. – 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.

10
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.
Dispensing of Personal Attendance- In appropriate cases the magistrate or judges may dispense with
personal attendance of the person concerned. Section 115 gives magistrate or judge the power to do so.

Section 115 – Power to Dispense with Personal Attendance : The magistarte may, if he sees sufficient
cause, dispense with the personal attendance of any person called upon to show cause why he should
not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping peace or for good behaviour and may permit him to
appear by a pleader.

Examination of Pleader in place of accused – In a summons case where the court has dispensed with
personal attendance of the accused, is it necessary that his pleader should be examined under section
313 or should such examination be of the accused himself?

There is also a controversy of this point, and different views has been expressed both as to what law is
and as to what it should be. One view is that the accused himself should be examined in all cases, and
even where his personal attendance has been dispensed with at other hearings, the court must require
him to be present for examination under section 313. Another view is that where it is not a serious case
and personal attendance has been dispensed with, the court may also dispense with the examination of
the accused or of his pleader. It is against the intendment of section 313 but the special and new
provision under section 317 has the power to stand more important in certain cases. This was
mentioned in the decision of Calcutta High Court in Prova Debi vs. Mrs. Fernandes;

“In that case a Full Bench of the Calcutta HC by a majority decision held that the magistrate may in his
discretion examine the pleader on behalf of the accused (under sec. 313) instead of the accused person
directly and even in the absence of the accused person. This view is supported by numerous decisions
of other High Courts, but from time to time many judges expressed vigorous dissents and came to the
opposite conclusion. The two sides of the matter are ably discussed in the majority and minority of the
Calcutta case. After a full examination of all the decided cases on the subject, we are inclined to agree
with the minority opinion.”

11
A third view is that the pleader should be examined in such cases, but the law should also provide that
the answers given by the pleader shall not be put in evidence against the accused in any other inquiry or
trial for any other offence which the answers of the pleader may tend to show that the accused has
committed. It would not, according to this view, be proper to totally dispense with the examination of
both the accused and his pleader. There should be something on the record to show the explanation
either of the accused or of his pleader.

Trial Conducted in Absence of Accused due to Ill Physical Health or Ill Mental
Health:-

A court doesnt consider the evidence given by a unsounded person or does the court punish an
unsounded person equally to that of a sound minded man for the same crime. The court always finds it
important to consider the intention or the Mens Rea of a person for doing an act.

But there are special conditions when a sound minded person is exempted from appearing in the court
for trial due to mental conditions like depression, anxiety, phobias, etc and still his statements are
recorded somewhere else or if an accused person he is not compelled to attend all days of the trial as
his presence might course disturbance to the normal taking place of the trial.

Another condition is that of Physically Ill people.

The Court directed that terminally ill patients may be exempted from personal appearance under
Section 317(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a separate trial may be held for them in
terms of Section 317(2) CrPC or prosecution may be withdrawn all together for a terminally ill
undertrial in terms of Section 321 CrPC. In Charanjit Singh and National Human Rights Commission v.
State [decision dated 4th March 2005 in CrlW Nos. 729/2002 and 1278/2004], this Court empahsised
the need to sensitively deal with mentally ill prisoners and address their need for special psychiatric
care.

12
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SECTIONS

Though there may be some overlapping areas between these sections, there also lies clear distinction
between the same. Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be applicable when
the proceedings have begun before the Magistrate and charges are yet to be framed. An order issued
under Section 205 Cr.P.C., exempting personal attendance of an accused would continue to be
operational even after charges have been framed and till the conclusion of the trial.

Reference here is drawn to the Supreme Court judgment in TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., an
excerpt of which is produced below:

Para 7 of Judgement:-

“The Section confers a discretion on the court to exempt an accused from personal appearance till such
time his appearance is considered by the court to be not necessary during the trial. It is manifest from a
plain reading of the provision that while considering an application under Section 205 of the Code, the
Magistrate has to bear in mind the nature of the case as also the conduct of the person summoned. He
shall examine whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the
accused or whether the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence."

Section 317 of Code of Criminal Procedure would generally be applicable during the trial stage, i.e.,
after the charges have been framed.

S. 205 application can be filed at the time of first appearance of the accused claiming the exemption
from appearance. In appropriate cases, the Magistrate can allow an accused to even make the first
appearance through a counsel. On the other hand, S. 317 empowers the Court to dispense with the
Personal attendance of the accused for proceeding with further steps in the case at stage of inquiries
and trials.

Another major difference between the sections is that power under Section 205 could be exercised only
by a Magistrate, whereas power under Section 317 could be used both by a Session Judge or a
Magistrate.

13
Special Petition for Dispensing Person Attendance of Accused Person

Section 205 Cr.P.C and Section 317 Cr.P.C: Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence
of accused in certain cases: Section 317 Cr.P.C lays down the procedure for inquiries and trials
beingconducted in the absence of accused in certain cases. The section enables the Court to dispense
with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with the inquiry or trial in his absence. Section
205 which provides that when a Magistrate issues summons, he may dispense with the personal
attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by a pleader. The general rule is that all inquiries
and trials should be conducted in the presence of the accused. Therefore, this section provides an
exception to this general rule. Sub-Section (2) provides for the case of an accused who is not
represented by a pleader but whose continued personal presence or attendance may be necessary. In
such a case the Court may either adjourn the trial of all the accused or order the particular absenting
accused to be tried separately. In either case, i.e., sub-section (1) or(2) the Court shall record reasons in
writing for its decision in this regard. In Baskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apprals Ltd.
decided on Wednesday, April 10, 2013., the Honourable Supreme Court held that in certain cases the
Magistrate may exempt the accused even from the first personal attendance and permit him to be
represented by his Counsel and record the Counsel’s evidence as the evidence given by the accused.
Section 317 permits the Magistrate to exempt the accused from personal appearance before the Court
provided he is being represented by his defence Counsel and the latter is appearing before the Court on
behalf of the accused.

14
CASE LAWS:-
1. Jitsingh Kalirai, Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kulbir Singh Ahuja - Court Judgment
The case is essentially against M/s. Voltas Ltd. and 27 others. Respondent No. 1 was the Commercial
Manager and he was one of the main accused in the case. It is an admitted position that the other
accused are the members of the Board of Voltas Ltd. and other office-bearers of the said company. The
case is on the allegation that the accused have evaded excise to the tune of Rs. 6,32,86,400/- and that
thereby they have defrauded the Central Excise of the legitimate excise duty. The case is pending since
about 1986. Respondent No. 1 made an application on or about January 2, 1989, praying that he may be
permitted to go abroad for a period of two years from February 15, 1989, as he has secured a job for a
period of two years with a company.
 After hearing both the sides the learned Magistrate by his order dated January 30, 1989 granted the
permission, but subject to certain conditions. The operative part of the order is as follows :

'I order that accused No. 19 should get the consent of the present surety to go out of India. Thereafter
accused No. 19 to give a Bond of Rs. 5 lakhs (Rupees five lakhs only) with the one surety in the like
amount or Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) cash deposit as additional surety. On this accused is
permitted to go out of India for a period of 6 (six) months on the conditions that his authorised
Advocate will be present on each occasion and will go on with the matter. In case the matter goes on
further, Accused No. 19 to give undertaking that in case the Court so desires, he will remain present in
the Court any time even during the period of six months for the purpose of the trial. This order to be
effective from 8-2-1989.'

The matter has been at length. Initially the contention was that the order would fall within the scope of
Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After some discussion, Mr. Samant conceded that
technically the order would not fall within the scope of Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
However, having regard to the condition that the case may have to go on in the absence of the accused
subject to the Advocate of respondent No. 1 remaining present, the order could be considered virtually
as an order under Section 317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Developing this line of thinking, Mr.
Samant as also Mr. Jaisinghani, who appeared for Union of India, in the writ petition field by
respondent No. 1, submitted that the order is not in the interest of justice.
The order of the learned Magistrate dated January 30, 1989 stands. There will be two additional
conditions viz., (1) Respondent No. 1 should get a fresh letter of appointment from the company where

15
he was getting an appointment and such a letter should be furnished to the Collector of Central Excise,
eight days before his actual departure from India.

(2) Similarly, he should also get a letter from the appointing authority of the company in which he is
getting an appointment (not from any Indian agent) stating that they are aware of the fact that
respondent No. 1 is involved in case No. 38/CW/89, presently pending in the 3rd Court of the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Bombay and that he has been allowed to go out
of India on a bond and that the bond requires that he is required to come back to India for the purpose
of trial after a period of six months or earlier or as and when required by the Court and that they would
permit him to come back to India as per the bond. Such a letter should also be furnished to the Central
Excise, eight days before the actual departure of respondent No. 1 from India.

2. Dr. Prakash Amrut Mody and B.K. Sharma Vs. the State of Jharkhand

The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with a
prayer for quashing the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro
in Complaint Case No. 373 of 2003. The petitioners are cited as accused and are facing trial for the
offences under Sections 420, 468, 469, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, besides offence under Section
17 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. By the order impugned, the learned court below had refused to
extend protection to the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C.
The petitioners had filed their application for exemption of personal appearance in this cast: under
Section 205 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they being employed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director and
Executive Director of Pharmaceutical Company, namely, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd., they have
been made accused in this case for alleged acts, which they have not committed, since they being high
officials of the Company, they have no direct involvement in the day to day business of the Company
and further, that both the petitioners by virtue of their office, are stationed at Company's Headquarters
at Bombay and they are also required to undertake business trips not only within India but also outside
the country and as such it would be extremely inconvenient and prejudicial to their interest, if
exemption for personal appearance is not granted to the petitioners.
 The learned court below refused the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have
not made out any justifiable reason to treat them separately when a provision of Section 317 Cr.P.C. is
always available to them for being represented by their lawyer instead of putting in their personal

16
appearance on each date. The learned court below had felt that 'equality before law being a sacrosanct
principle of our Constitution, it should not be diluted by giving 'carte blanche' to any higher factionary
to be above law'.
It may be noted that the provisions of Section 205 Cr.P.C., while allowing the discretion to the
Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit the accused to appear by
his pleader, also empowers the Magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage
of the proceeding. A similar power is also vested with the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section
317 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The learned trial court has refused to extend the protection under Section 205 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners
without proper appreciation of the grounds advanced and on the erroneous belief that extending the
protection would amount to diluting the sacrosanct principle of equality of law. Apparently the trial
court has not appreciated the genuine inconvenience, which would visit the petitioners on account of
the distance and their constant engagement in urgent matters of business relating to their company.

In the light of the above discussion, I find merit in this application. The impugned order of the learned
court below is hereby set aside, the prayer of the petitioners for dispensing with their personal
appearance before the court below and allowing them to be represented through their lawyer, under
Section 205 Cr.P.C. is allowed. However, the trial court would be at liberty to direct personal
attendance of the petitioners at the time of framing of charge or on any specific date as and when it
thinks fit.

Helen Rubber Industries Kottayam ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 13 September, 1972
 In Cri. R.P. Nos. 226 and 227 of 1972 the petitioners filed an application for exemption from personal
appearance for a day and requested that the plea of guilty may be accepted. The lower Court allowed
the petition for exemption for that particular day but refused to accept the plea of guilty indicated in the
petition and adjourned the case for another day for appearance of the accused. In these cases, summons
issued clearly stated that the accused can appear either in person or through a pleader. However in view
of the fact that the application made by the petitioners in these cases was only for exemption for one
day which was allowed by the lower Court.
The refusal by the Learned District Magistrate, Ernakulam to exempt the personal attendance of the
accused in some cases under the Companies Act that came before him has resulted in these revision
petitions. The petitioners before me were proceeded against for non. submission of the returns and

17
balance sheet for offences under sections 159-162, 614-A, 220(1) and 220(3) of the Companies Act.
Against most of them there are two cases for two separate offences. In all these cases, except one. they
indicated their intention to plead guilty and receive sentence. The proper exercise of discretion in these
cases, in the interests of justice and expeditious disposal of cases, would have been to exempt personal
attendance of the accused, accept the plea of guilty and impose such sentence as the Court felt
necessary in the circumstances of the case.
All the petitioners are Directors of their respective companies. Some of them are ladies and some old,
residing in various parts of the State. The case was appealed and taken to the upper court where the
judge said that  “
I direct the petitioners to file another application in these cases praying for exemption from personal
attendance and to permit their pleader to appear for their behalf. I also direct the learned District
Magistrate to exempt the petitioners from personal attendance if such an application is made and then
proceed In accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in the earlier portions of this
order.
In the result these criminal revision petitions are allowed and the learned District Magistrate is directed
to exempt, personal attendance of the accused in these cases, permit them to appear through their
pleader and to proceed according to law.”

T.G.N Kumar vs State Of Kerala & Ors

The Special Leave Application is to the order dated 4th September, 2008 passed by a learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Kerala in Crl. M.C. No.1977 of 2007 whereby a number of general
directions have been issued to all the criminal courts, which are called upon to hold trials, particularly
in cases involving an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short
"the N.I. Act"), as also in all other cases involving offences which are technical in nature and do not
involve any moral turpitude.
The learned Judge has issued the following `rules of guidance', with a direction that these can and must
certainly be followed by the court below in the instant case as also by all criminal courts which are
called upon to deal with trials under Section 138 of the N.I. Act:-
"i) Hereafter in all 138 prosecutions, the very fact that the prosecution is one under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act shall be reckoned as sufficient reason by all criminal courts to invoke the
discretion under Section 205 Cr.P.C and only a summons under Section 205 Cr.P.C shall be issued by

18
the criminal courts at the first instance. In all pending 138 cases also applications under Section
205 Cr.P.C shall be allowed and the accused shall be permitted to appear through their counsel.

ii) The plea whether of guilty or of innocence can be recorded through counsel duly appointed and for
that purpose personal presence of the accused shall not be insisted.

iii) Evidence can be recorded in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the
presence of the counsel as enabled by Section 273 Cr.P.C when the accused is exempted from personal
appearance and for that purpose, the personal presence of the accused shall not be insisted.

19
CONCLUSION

The sections discussing the special provision of Dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused
person is a law which has been there in both the versions of Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and
1973, this shows that the judiciary has always focused on making the court proceedings to be easy for
the layman. The sections 205 and 317 are laid down beacause the Judiciary and government wants
them to approach the law as solution for their problems without them feeling that it is a tedious or
burdensome work. It wants the real accused person to be punished and if its a petty offence committed
by mistake then to be dealt with no kind of affecting anyones integrity and public image. The law
makers also takes the possibility of someone being wrongly accused and if relevant explanations are
given then people will be given the oppurtunity of appearing through a pleader. Even if a real wrong
doer escapes also the court wants to make sure that no innocent is defamed or punished. The sections
also looks after the needs of accused person but under certain conditions, this can be seen in the case
law Jitsingh Kalirai, Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. Vs. Kulbir Singh Ahuja. It also makes sure that no
person misuses this special provision given for the welfare of the citizens approaching court
for justice.

20