M. S. NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 28-4-1980 passed by the judicial Magistrate I Class, Virajpet, in CC no. 667 of 1977. The order is as follows:- "accused absent and EA filed and disallowed since they are absent since long time. Issue NBW to them by 29-5-1980". ( 2 ) ON filing of this criminal petition in this Court, this Court stayed further proceedings in the said case by its order dated 27 5-1980. Therefore, the non-bailable warrant directed by the learned Magistrate on 28-4 1980 might not have been either issued or served. ( 3 ) THE few facts necessary for disposal of this petition filed under S. 482 of Cr. PC may be narrated as follows :- respondent-1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and another as A-1 and A-2 alleging that they had committed an offence punishable under S. 505 (b) of IPC in publishing certain matter in the news paper 'hitavani' daily. The learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons. On 21-3-1980-it is not necessaray to narrate for how many times the case was adjourned from 19-12-79-an application under S. 317 of Cr. PC was filed for exemption of the petitioner from appearance during trial. In my opinion, it would serve the purpose properly if the sum and substance of the said application is narrated at this stage itself. It is stated that the petitioner is an MLC and has to attend the Legislature and some committees in Bangalore and he should always be present in the Capital City viz. , Bangalore and further that his personal appearance is not necessary in the interest of justice. On that day both the accused were present. The learned Magistrate called for objections from the Asst. Public Prosecutor and posted the case to 3-4-1980. On 3-4-1980 the Asst. Public Prosecutor prayed for time to file objections. The accused were absent but exemption application was filed evidently under S. 205 cr. PC and was allowed. The case was posted to 16:4-1980. On 16 4-1980 also the accused were absent and an exemption application was filed evidently under S. 205 of Cr. PC. It appears, it has been allowed. The Assistant Public Prosecutor filed objections to the application under S. 317 of cr PC filed on 21 3-1980. PC and was allowed. The case was posted to 16:4-1980. On 16 4-1980 also the accused were absent and an exemption application was filed evidently under S. 205 of Cr. PC. It appears, it has been allowed. The Assistant Public Prosecutor filed objections to the application under S. 317 of cr PC filed on 21 3-1980. The case was posted to 28 4 1980 which is the relevant date. On that day again the accused were absent and an exemption application was filed. It is my considered opinion that a gist of this application be narrated at this stage itself. This has been filed on behalf of both the accused persons. It states that because of certain unavoidable reasons, the accused were to be present in Bangalore and exemption from appearance for that date be granted to them. It is on consideration of this application that the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order. ( 4 ) SRI S. V. Jagannath, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, "urged that the learned Magistrate had failed to take into consideration the fact that the presence of the petitioner was not necessary on 28-4-1980 because the case had been posted for hearing the application under S. 317 of cr. PC filed on 21-3-1980 as is clear from the order passed on 16 4-1980, the date of hearing previous to 28-4-1980 and, therefore, the order passed is unfair and unjust and this Court should, in the interest of justice, interfere in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 of Cr. PC. ( 5 ) WHAT has happened on 28-4-1980 has already been made cleaf. The learned magistrate had not passed any orders till that date or even on that date on the application filed on 21 3-1980. When summons had been served on the accused and when they had been present on certain dates, it was equally their duty to be present in the Court on 28-4-1980. It was not for them to decide whether their presence was necessary or not. ( 6 ) S. 205 of Cr. PC under which the exemption application dated 28-4-1980 has been filed reads as follows :- "magistrate may dispense with pen. It was not for them to decide whether their presence was necessary or not. ( 6 ) S. 205 of Cr. PC under which the exemption application dated 28-4-1980 has been filed reads as follows :- "magistrate may dispense with pen. on nal 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 hi 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". It does not lay down that the Magistrate has to record reasons either to grant or reject the exemption, while S. 317 of cr. PC provides that he has to record reasons in support of his conclusion that the personal attendance of the concerned accused is not necessary, in the interests of justice and so on. The difference in the language in the two sections makes it abundantly clear that absolute discretion is vested in the Magistrate either to grant or to reject the exemption under S. 205 of cr. PC. Therefore, it is not, in my considered opinion, just and proper to interfere with this kind of discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate, while exercising powers of this Court under S. 482 of cr. PC. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. --- *** --- .