JUDGMENT 1. Cases Referred : C. S. Desai v. Paul Abrao, 1963 K,L.T. 548.Narayanaswami v. Egappa, 1962 (2) Cri. L. J. 616.Raghunath v. Ghisa Ram, 1976 Raj. Cr. Cases 29.Sashadhar v. Sir Charles Tekart, AIR1931 Cal. 646. 2. K.S. Lodha, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order of the learned Addl. Chief Judl. Magistrate, Ratangarh, dated 12.10.83 by which the learned Magistrate has found that a joint complaint for an offence u/s 500 I.P.C. is maintainable and by other part of the order, he has refused exemption from attendance prayed for by the accused persons, who are the petitioners in this case. 3. So far as ihe first part of the order holding a joint complaint maintainable yet it is supported by an authority of this court reported in Raghunath v. Ghisa Ram (1976 Raj. Cr. Cases 29). The learned counsel for the petitioners has of course cited some authorities of other courts, namely, C. S. Desai v. Paul Abrao (1963 K,L.T. 548), Narayanaswami v. Egappa (1962 (2) Cri. L. J. 616) & Sashadhar v. Sir Charles Tekart (A.I.R. 1931 Cal. 646). In the circumstances of the case, or at present advised I am not inclined to take a view different from the one already taken by this Court in Raghunaths case (supra) and, therefore, the first contention must fail. 4. So far as the second contention goes, looking to all the circumstances of the case, it appears that no useful purpose would be served by asking all the accused persons who are seven in number and are said to be posted as teachers at different places to appear on every date of hearing and, therefore, the learned Magistrate does not appear to have exercised a proper discretion in refusing them exemption from attendance. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners also does not seriously oppose this but he submits that it should be ensured that at least one of the accused persons is present on every date of hearing and the rest may be directed to appear whenever the court wants all the persons in the court. This appears to be most reasonable. The learned counsel for the non-petitioners also does not seriously oppose this but he submits that it should be ensured that at least one of the accused persons is present on every date of hearing and the rest may be directed to appear whenever the court wants all the persons in the court. This appears to be most reasonable. In this view of the matter, the second part of the order of the learned Magistrate is modified to the affect that the accused-petitioners shall be exempted from attendance on every date of hearing provided at least one of then appears before the court on every date of hearing and the others shall appear as and when the court directs them to appear. 5. The revision is thus partly allowed as indicated above. *******