JUDGMENT : A.P. Sinha, J. This application is directed against the ORDER :dated 20.8.1982 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Barh in Case No. 4350 of 1981 by which the prayer of the, petitioners for being represented through their lawyer under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been rejected. 2. The trial has been initiated on the basis of a complaint petition filed by the landlord against four lady petitioners who are tenants. There appears to be a quarrel and dispute existing between the parties. The complainant landlord has filed the complaint petition by simply alleging that the petitioners along with other made members had made a hole in the roof and were in habit of flowing dirty water. Further allegation made were that on the particular date of occurrence the petitioners had entered in the portion of the house occupied by the landlord and had taken away one Thali and a Lota. 3. The petitioner had filed an application under section 205 of the Code to be represented through a lawyer at the initial stage. The grounds set-forth was that petitioner no. 3 Mossomat Mohna Devi was an old lady of about 70 years and she was practically invalid and thus incapable of any movement. Petitioner no. 1 Chandrawati Devi had just delivered a child and she also was not keeping good health. Mira Devi and Dharamshila Devi were also stated to be not keeping good health. Above all there was an assertion that they are respectable and Parda Nasin ladies. 4. The learned Magistrate had allowed the representation but subsequently he has rejected by the impugned ORDER :. 5. The facts stated in support of the representation under section 205 of the Code have not been controverted. It appears from the ORDER :of the learned Magistrate also that this fact had not been challenged in the court below even. 6. That being so, I have no hesitation in saying that a personable case for representation under section 205 of the Code has been made out by the petitioners. 7. It will appear from section 313(b) Proviso that if a court has dispensed with the personal attendance of any accused it nay also dispensed with his examination under clause (b). Thus it is clear that the question of permitting absence of accused persons under certain circumstances has been made permissible. 7. It will appear from section 313(b) Proviso that if a court has dispensed with the personal attendance of any accused it nay also dispensed with his examination under clause (b). Thus it is clear that the question of permitting absence of accused persons under certain circumstances has been made permissible. If the personal attendance has been permitted to be dispensed with, as stated above, there is absolutely no reason as to why the personal attendance may not be dispensed with at the time of framing of charge even. It is because absolutely there is no difference between the values attached with section 313 of the Code and the stage of framing of charge. Under the circumstances and also considering the special nature of this case, where it appears that the subject matter of the dispute is of a very petty nature and that too involving the entire adult ladies of the house, in the ends of justice the personal attendance of the petitioners can safely be dispensed with at the stage of framing of charge even. So far as the question of their appearance at the time of delivering the JUDGMENT : is concerned that has been also made permissible if there be a sentence of fine and the attendance at the time of JUDGMENT : can not be construed rigorously because in the new Code of Criminal Procedure there are provisions even for pleading guilt, by post under certain circumstances and that being so, the question of personal attendance appears to have been liberalised and harassment caused to the accused minimised. 8. A decision reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 437 (Rabi Singh and others v. State of Bihar) has been relied upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. From the perusal of that decision it appears that in case of suitable circumstances and that too when ladies are involved personal attendance should be dispensed with. 9. Section 353(7) of the Code provides that no JUDGMENT : delivered in a criminal court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party of his pleader on the date or from the place notified for the delivery thereof......... 10. 9. Section 353(7) of the Code provides that no JUDGMENT : delivered in a criminal court shall be deemed to be invalid by reason only of the absence of any party of his pleader on the date or from the place notified for the delivery thereof......... 10. Therefore, from reading of section 353 (6) and (7) it can safely be said that personal attendance of the petitioners can also be dispensed with under certain circumstances and that being so, the learned Magistrate will consider these facts and only on extraordinary or compelling circumstances he will direct the petitioners to appear on the date of JUDGMENT : otherwise the petitioners will be permitted to be represented through their respective lawyers. 11. In the result the impugned ORDER :is set aside, the application is allowed and the learned Magistrate is directed to Act in accordance with the observations made above.