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 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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. 
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.

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.

· 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.

· The sources of study:

· 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

· 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.
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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. "

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."
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.
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 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 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 company's 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 balance sheet for offences under sections 159-152, 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 Sction 205 Cr.P.C and only a summons under under Sction 205
Cr.P.C shall be issued by the criminal courts at the first instance. In all pending 138 cases also
applications under under Sction 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 under Sction 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
in the presence of the counsel as enabled by under Sction 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.
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.