JUDGMENT 1. - Smt. Manni w/o Kishna Gujar resident of village Bagri Tehsil Toda Rai Singh has invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court by way of an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the order of the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, dated November 13, 1980, which was confirmed by the Sessions Judge, Tonk, on February, 16, 1981, and by which the application of the petitioner for her exemption from personal attendance in the court was rejected and she was directed to put in her appearance to furnish bail bonds and to answer whether she pleaded guilty or had any defence to make. 2. Notice of this application under section 482, Cr.P.C. was given to Soowa son of Deva, non-petitioner, but he has not appeared in this Court despite due service of notice on him. He has not engaged any layer also to represent him in this Court. Hence, I heard Mr. P.P. Nag, learned counsel for the petitioner and permed the record. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not exercise his discretion judiciously keeping in view the facts and the circumstances of this case. It was further urged that the discretion should have been exercised by the Judicial Magistrate liberally in this case because the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is of petty nature and the presence of the petitioner is not required at this stage. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon S.P. Sinha and other v. Labour Enforcement Officer, 1976(1), Cr.L.J. 76 and K.C. Ghoshal v. Provident Fund Inspector, 1979 RLW 372 . I have gone through the authorities cited above.In the present case the petitioner was summoned to appear in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, to face trial for an offence under section 323, I.P.C. only. The offence tinder section 323, I P.C. is an offence of a petty nature, which does not involve any moral turpitute. Apart from this, the petitioner was represented in the court by a pleader. The offence tinder section 323, I P.C. is an offence of a petty nature, which does not involve any moral turpitute. Apart from this, the petitioner was represented in the court by a pleader. Looking to the petty nature of the offence and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a woman residing with her children in village Bagri, which is situated at a considerable distance from Malpura where the trial court is located, I am of the view that the Judicial Magistrate should have permitted the petitioner to appear by a pleader. There is no legal bar that the pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioner cannot hear the substance of accusation under section 251, new Cr.P.C. and cannot be asked whether his client (petitioner) pleads guilty or has any defence to make. In S.P. Sinha's case (supra), it has been held that where the personal attendance of an accused has been dispensed with during the trial, the court can act upon the plea given by the pleader in the case under sections 251 and 252, new Cr.P.C. Hence, the reason given by the Judicial Magistrate for not dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner is not substantial. Another reason given by the Judicial Magistrate in his impugned order for rejecting the application for exemption of the petitioner from personal attendance is that the petitioner's presence is required in the court to furnish personal bond. This reason also is not a good reason, because the petitioner may be treated as present for the purpose of furnishing a recognizance bond if she has been granted exemption under section 205, Cr.P.C, and her pleader is present in the court. 3. For the foregoing reasons, the application filled by the petitioner under section 482, Cr.P.C. is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, and the Sessions Judge, Tonk, on November 13, 1980, and February, 16, 1981, respectively are set aside and the Judicial Magistrate, Malpura, is directed to grant exemption to the petitioner from personal attendance at this stage. However, it may be observed that the Judicial Magistrate trying the case may direct the personal attendance of the petitioner if in his discrection such personal attendance is necessary later on at any stage of the proceedings.Application allowed. *******