JUDGMENT 1. - This revision application arises in peculiar circumstances and necessitates a close recall of the events that have led to it. 2. Shri Pukhraji situated a complaint in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1, Jodhpur, on October 27, 1971 under sections 323 & 504, Indian Penal Code, against Shri Daljinder Singh, who was then Post Master General, Rajasthan. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case and issued process against the accused on October 29,1971. Two applications were moved before the learned Magistrate on behalf of the accused. The first was that his personal appearance may be dispensed with under section 205/540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1898 and the other was that the accused being a Government servant who could not be removed excepting by the Central Government, no complaint should be taken cognizance of without the sanction as required by section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected both the applications by his order dated January 5, 1972. The accused made an application by way of revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur challenging the order by which exemption from personal appearance was denied to the accused and moved the High Court for quashing the proceedings for want of sanction. In the revision application before the Addl. Munsif Magistrate were stayed by the order dated January 19, 1972 and the High Court by its order dated February 25, 1972 quashed the proceedings holding that unless sanction was accorded the accused could not be prosecuted. The learned Sessions Judge on April 5, 1972 held that when the case could be taken congnizance of without proper sanction as directed by the High Court's judgement dated February 25, 1972 the revision application with regard to the personal appearance of the accused did not survive and had become in fructuous. 3. Shri Pukraj aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated February 25, 1972 took the matter before the Hon'ble The Supreme Court and by its order dated August 29, 1973 the Supreme Court held that the allegation were that the Post Master General had kicked and abused the complainant as alleged by him in his complaint. In such a situation, he was not acting in exercise of his duty and no sanction was necessary. The High Court's order was set aside, (Cr. A.101/72. In such a situation, he was not acting in exercise of his duty and no sanction was necessary. The High Court's order was set aside, (Cr. A.101/72. Pukh Raj v. State of Rajasthan & another, 1973 U.J. (S.C.)P.832) , the result being that the parties were relegated to the position as it was on January 5,1972. 4. The accused moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge on November 15, 1973 praying that the revision which was considered to be infructuous by its order dated April 5, 1972, be revived under its inherent powers. The lerned Sessions Judge held that he had no such powers and he could not restore the revision application dismissed by him in the absence of any specific power conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure. So situated Shri Daljinder Singh has come up to this Court. 5. I have heard Mr. M.M. Singhvi on behalf of the accused-applicant and the learned Additional Advocate General. No one appears on behalf of the complainant Shri Pukharaj. The question which calls for an answer is; whether I would be justified in interfering with the order of the learned Magistrate dated January 5,1972 in regard to the application of the accused seeking exemption from personal appearance at this State? 6. Two course are open to me (1) to entertain the revision again and adjudge it in the extra ordinary circumstances of this case or (2) to sent the revision to the learned Sessions Judge for deciding it. In view of the long interval between the 5th of January, 1972 and today, I am not inclined to adopt the latter course because it may probably mean a reference to this Court depending upon what view the learned Sessions Judge might take on the revision application. I am not inclined to multiply proceedings. The question is simple & I want to settle it so that course of justice is not retarded. 7. The revision application no doubt is quite late but I condone the delay in view of the back ground of the case. The question that remains to be answered is whether Shri Daljinder Singh, who is now posted as Deputy Director General (Postal Staff) P&T. Direct rate New Delhi, should personally appear in the Court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1 and answer the charge or his presence be dispensed with. The reason which persuaded the learned Addl. The question that remains to be answered is whether Shri Daljinder Singh, who is now posted as Deputy Director General (Postal Staff) P&T. Direct rate New Delhi, should personally appear in the Court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate No. 1 and answer the charge or his presence be dispensed with. The reason which persuaded the learned Addl. Munsiff Magistrate to insist upon the personal appearance of the accused was the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant that witnesses for the prosecution knew the accused only by fact. I have read the statements. The complainant appears to personally know the accused & witness Shri Udai Karan has also stated that he had known Shri Daljinder Singh personally. If there is a witness or there are witnesses who have to identify Shri Daljinder Singh personally on such date when they are present, the presence of the accused can be insisted upon and the learned Magistrate would be at liberty to order the personal appearance of the accused in Court on such date or dates. On other dates the personal presence of the accused is likely to interfere with the discharge of his duties, apart from causing expenses and inconvenience. I therefore, direct that the personal attendance of Shri Daljinder Singh is hereby dispenses with and he is permitted to appear by his pleader. The learned Addl. Munsiff Magistrate will indicate the date or dates on which his presence presence is required for the purposes of identification after satisfying himself that it is genuinely so required. With these observation, this revision application is allowed. *******