JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This revision application is directed against the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kendrapara, rejecting the application u/s 265, Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the accused Petitioners and requiring them to appear in Court in person. 2. The Petitioners who are said to be young ladies have been implicated in a case u/s 379, Indian Penal Code on the allegation that on 1-7-1971 they forcibly entered into the backyard of the complainant and took away pumpkins worth about Rs. 15/-. The learned S.D.M. took cognizance of the offence on 3-7-1971 and directed issue of summons. Service of summons was by affixture. Order dated 29-7-1971 is to the following effect: Complainant present S.R. received. Service is affixture. Issue N.B.W. against the accused persons and put up on 24.9.1971. Step at once. The learned Magistrate nowhere indicated his judicial satisfaction that service had been sufficient. His order does not show any application of his mind to the facts of the case. Before the N.B.Ws. were executed the Petitioners entered appearance through counsel and applied for representation u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order that application was rejected. On this occasion the learned Magistrate said: ...Accused persons file a petition u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with their personal attendance on the grounds stated there in Complainant files a petition opposing the same. The petition u/s 205. Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected. Let the accused persons make their appearance in person before the Court. N.B.Ws. may be kept in abeyance till next date in order to facilitate the defence to produce the accused persons. No reasons were indicated for rejection of the petition. When two contending parties had raised a dispute on the question of representation being allowed or withheld it was obligatory on the part of the learned Magistrate to indicate his reasons for refusing representation. When discretion in law vests in a judicial officer for its exercise, normally reasons are to be provided indicating the justification for its exercise one way or the other. Greater is the need for such reasons to be indicated when the discretion is withheld. 3. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners contends that his clients are young ladies. The offence is very nominal. The learned Magistrate had issued summons at the first instance. N.B.Ws. Greater is the need for such reasons to be indicated when the discretion is withheld. 3. Mr. Mohanty for the Petitioners contends that his clients are young ladies. The offence is very nominal. The learned Magistrate had issued summons at the first instance. N.B.Ws. had not been executed and in fact Petitioners had never been served with summons from the Court. Keeping all these aspects in view the representation should have been allowed. Mr. Misra on the other band, for the complainant opposite party contends that the Court has no jurisdiction to allow representation because N.B.Ws. having already issued for the apprehension of the accused persons Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure is no more applicable. 4. Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure provides, (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 manner hereinbefore provided. The objection advanced by Mr. Misra is that as warrants had already been issued in this case the provisions of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure are no more applicable. He placed reliance on some decisions which on scrutiny do not support him. In Abdul Hamid v. Emperor AIR 1924 Pat. 46, it has been held by a Division Bench of that Court, Now the point made before us is that the trial is bad because the Deputy Magistrate had no power to allow Abdul Hamid to be represented by a Mukhtar and to hear the examination in chief of the prosecution witnesses in his absence or think this contention must prevail. Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to oases in which the Magistrate has issued 80 summons in the first instance. It does not apply to 80 case such as the present where the accused has been arrested without or after the issue of a warrant. The matter was being examined from a different point of view. Again as I would presently indicate there is really no justification to introduce the concept of "at the first instance" in the matter of issue of summons. The statutory provision does not warrant the supplanting. The matter was being examined from a different point of view. Again as I would presently indicate there is really no justification to introduce the concept of "at the first instance" in the matter of issue of summons. The statutory provision does not warrant the supplanting. In Lekhram Agarwalla and Others Vs. Pannalal Agarwalla and Another it has been indicated that Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply where a warrant is issued and not a summons. The point for examination before the Bench of the Assam High Court in that case was also very different. Reliance was next placed by Mr. Misra on the decision of the Madras High Court In re Hasanath AIR 1947 Mad. 493, where Rajamannar, J., as his Lordship then was, said, Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure applies only to cases in which the Magistrate has issued a summons in the first instance and not where the accused has been arrested without or after the issue of a warrant. Obviously the view in Abdul Hamid v. Emperor AIR 1924 Pat. 46, was followed. 5. A Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Adiya pd. Bagchi v. Jogendra Nath Maitra AIR 1948 All. 993, dealt with this matter at length. They referred to the Patna decision as also the Madras decision. Wanchoo, J., as his Lordship then was, delivering the judgment of the Bench with which Raghubar Dayal, J., as his Lordship then was, concurred, said, The mere fact that Section 205, follows Section 204 in the same chapter is no good reason for introducing the words "in the first instance" after the word summons in Sub-section (1) of Section 205. Section 205 does not deal with the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused person after a summons or warrant has been, served on the accused. That question would usually arise after an accused has appeared in Court and there is no reason why this section should be read as debarring a Court from considering the request of an accused to appear by a pleader merely because a warrant had been issued in the first instance. Section 205 only applies to the stage where a Magistrate is considering the issue of a summons or warrant for the appearance of an accused person and no further. Section 205 only applies to the stage where a Magistrate is considering the issue of a summons or warrant for the appearance of an accused person and no further. It should not be extended to cover the powers of a Magistrate for exemption of the attendance of an accused person at any other stage then when the Magistrate is issuing process at the commencement of the proceedings. A full Bench of five learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Prova Debi Vs. Mrs. Fernandes dissented from the view indicted in the aforesaid Allahabad Case. It is not necessary for me to decide which view is proper for disposal of the present proceeding. But, I must say that there is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Mohanty that in facts of this case the learned Magistrate should have allowed representation. The Madras High Court in the case already referred to has indicated that Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure is wide enough to confer power on High Court to direct the Magistrate to dispense with the presence of accused during an enquiry before the Magistrate. Similar view has been expressed by the Nagpur High Court in AIR 1949 334 (Nagpur) . The Nagpur High Court approved the earlier decision of its own Court in AIR 1930 Nagpur 617. Keeping in view the legal position applicable to such oases I think it appropriate to quash the impugned order and direct that the Petitioners shall be represented by counsel, until the Magistrate in his discretion decides to take action under Sub-section (2) of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure in the interests of justice. The Criminal revision is allowed.