JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Petitioner in this criminal revision is one of the accused persons in I.C.C. No. 413 of 1986 in the court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore, His application for representation having been rejected and direction for issue of non-bailable warrant having been given, he has assailed the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balasore in this revision. 2. On the basis of a complaint for the offence u/s 494/114, I.P.C. and u/s 6-A of Dowry Prohibition Act, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence u/s 494/114, I.P.C. against the Petitioner. After service of summons and before the date fixed for appearance, Petitioner filed the petition for allowing him to be represented as provided u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. The same has been refused. 3. In this case the learned Counsel for the Petitioner produced the summons served on the Petitioner. It is not the statutory (Form No. I) provided for issue of summons to the accused. It is a hand-written summons in Oriya. The statutory form authorises the Court to issue summons to an accused either to appear in person or through pleader. The order issuing summons does not disclose that the Petitioner can appear through pleader. 4. Much before the date of appearance, the Petitioner filed the application to be permitted to be represented by a lawyer. Without assigning any reason the learned Magistrate rejected the application and directed issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest fixing the date to which reads as follows: Sl. No. 3 dt. 21-8 86: The case is advanced on the strength of an advance petition. A power in favour of advocates Sri Lalatendu Das, Sri P.C. Agasti and Sri S.N. Mohanty by the accused Sudhakar Dash, Advocate for the accused moves a petition u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. Heard. It is rejected. Issue N.B.W. fixing date fixed for their appearance. 5. The order, though in exercise of judicial power, is one without any reason indicated in support of it. On that simple ground the same has to be vacated. When an accused seeks a relief of whatever nature it is, he is entitled to know the reason for the same. Reason also helps the higher Court to examine the correctness of the order. On that simple ground the same has to be vacated. When an accused seeks a relief of whatever nature it is, he is entitled to know the reason for the same. Reason also helps the higher Court to examine the correctness of the order. Absence of reason in a judicial order is antithesis of governance by rule of law and having the mark of arbitrariness violates the fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution. In a decision reported in Pitambar Das v. Gobinda Chandra Satpathy 41 (1975) C.L.T. 1996, it has been observed that in matters of this nature it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to indicate convincing reasons for refusing the prayer for representation by lawyer. It was held that in a prosecution for an offence u/s 494/109, I.P.C., the progress of the case will not be affected at the initial stage if the personal attendance is dispensed with till such date when the presence of the accused would be necessary for the proper trial or disposal of the case. Relying on the principle enunciated in (supra) it was held in Smt. Savitri Sahu and Anr. v. Maguni Sahu 47 (1979) C.L.T. 102, that the accused summoned to stand trial u/s 310, I.P.C., should be permitted to appear through their lawyer. In Dr. Radhanath Rath and Ors. v. Sri Balakrishna Swain Crl. Rev. 381/84 of 13-9-1984, I have allowed the revision and permitted the accused to appear through a lawyer till personal appearance is felt necessary by the Court. 6. The order dated 8-8-86 has been filed. In the said order cognizance was taken and direction was given to issue summons to accused fixing 30-6-1986 for appearance of the accused. It has not been mentioned that the accused is to appear personally. It has also not been expressed that the accused cannot appear through pleader. I am at a loss to appreciate how it will be beneficial for the progress of the case if the accused Petitioner appears personally. 7. Normally appearance of the accused-Petitioner would be necessary when his identification by witness is necessary or for recording his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. If for any other reason such appearance is necessary at any other stage; the Court has absolute right u/s 205(2), Code of Criminal Procedure to call upon the accused to appear personally. 7. Normally appearance of the accused-Petitioner would be necessary when his identification by witness is necessary or for recording his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure. If for any other reason such appearance is necessary at any other stage; the Court has absolute right u/s 205(2), Code of Criminal Procedure to call upon the accused to appear personally. In that view of the matter, with the present day normal dealy in trial, an accused should not be compelled to appear personally if the same is not the requirement of law or when progress of the trial requires the same. 8. Taking any view of the matter in this case and the offence, which is one u/s 494/114, I.P.C., and bailable, the ends of justice would be best served if the representation is allowed with specific undertaking from the accused-Petitioner for personal appearance as and when required by the Court. 9. I have preferred to dispose of this application at the stage of admission without giving any notice to the complainant, since the complainant has got no say as regards the nature of appearance of the accused. In fact, the trial court while directing issue of summons to accused could have indicated in the summons that he can appear through a pleader. Manner of appearance of the accused is a matter between the Court and the accused, as I have held in the Criminal Revision No. 381 of 19534 (supra). It will be sufficient to observe that in case the complainant feels aggrieved because of non-appearance of the accused, she may move the Court giving adequate reasons for personal appearance and on such a petition being filed the Court shall pass a judicial order on its own merits. 10. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed. The prayer of the Petitioner to appear being represented by a lawyer is allowed and the learned Magistrate is directed to recall the non-bailable warrant of arrest which is hereby cancelled. Final Result : Allowed