Order.- The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection for allowing this application. He himself concedes that the prosecution has to got retried, inasmuch as the quashing petition seeking to set aside the proceedings pending against the petitioners herein before the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti for the alleged offence under the Gaming Act is ordered by this Court. 2. It is also relevant to note that in the petition it has been mentioned that the petitioners had contended that being the members of the Members Club known as ‘Cosmopolitan Club’, Kovilpatti, which is registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1960, where Rummy alone was played which was a game of skill, no offence was committed. It is further submitted in paragraph 4 of the petition that although stay of further proceedings had been granted by this Court, the trial Court is interested on the personal appearance of the petitioners. It is inter alia stated in paragraph 5 of the petition that the petitioners are advised to state that while this Court had granted interim stay, it may not be necessary for the petitioners to appear before the trial Court every time when the case is adjourned and the same has been causing considerable inconvenience. 3. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court may issue directions, to the trial Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused pending in Court in C.C. No. 308 of 1981 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kovilpatti, pending disposal of the petition for quashing proceedings. 4. The points for consideration in this application are: — 1. Under what provision of law this petition is maintainable? 2. Even if it is maintainable under the circumstances, whether this Court's order admitting the petition to quash the proceedings ipso facto gives the parties a right to absent themselves, in other words, without complying with the order of the lower Court to appear as per its direction? In other words, can the petitioners be allowed to absent themselves without assigning any reason before the trial Court where they are charge-sheeted merely on the ground they have preferred appeal in this Court? 5. The petition is maintainable as this Court has power of superintendence over the lower Court where the proceedings are pending against the petitioners? 6. In other words, can the petitioners be allowed to absent themselves without assigning any reason before the trial Court where they are charge-sheeted merely on the ground they have preferred appeal in this Court? 5. The petition is maintainable as this Court has power of superintendence over the lower Court where the proceedings are pending against the petitioners? 6. In my view, when the lower Court requires the attendance of the persons for the reasons recorded by it, even this Court cannot interfere with the discretion of that Court unless it is shown that that discretion has been exercised mala fide. 7. When the normal circumstances are prevailing, as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the presence of the accused is required during the proceedings against him are conducted by a competent criminal Court. Only under special circumstances contemplated by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Judicial discretion vested with a criminal Court can be exercised in favour of the accused for complying with his prayer for dispensing with his presence during the proceedings against him in the said Court. 8. When there has been no stay granted or any direction issued by this Court regarding the personal appearance in the order admitting the petition to quash the proceedings, by way of this application, which of course can be maintained under the discretionary powers vested in the Court, this Court cannot pronounce an order which will curb and minimise the statute of the lower Court's order especially when the lower Court insists on the personal appearance of the persons. There is no reason, which is worth mentioning that has been mentioned here on behalf of the accused-petitioners for dispensing with their personal appearance before the competent criminal Court in which prosecution has been launched against them. These persons, who are alleged to have committed certain offences inside the Club cannot be treated in a different way regarding the application the normal rule of presence of the accused during the proceedings in a criminal Court, because the basis for the relevant provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, is framed on the basis of the maxim “aude alterm parton”. No one, however higher the status or position he claimse in a society is yet amenable to the rule of law prescribed under the provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Criminal Rules of Practice framed under the Act. 9. Whether they played “Rummy” or some other game, this Court is not now concerned with. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this application. The application is dismissed. R.S. ----- Application dismissed.