JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - An order refusing the prayer of the Petitioner u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure for being represented through an Advocate in G.R. Case No. 527 of 1985 in which he is an accused has occasioned this revision. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that he is an employee at Madras in a reputed concern and is an international passport holder and in exigencies of duties, he is required to go to different parts of the country as well as to foreign countries and in view of such occupation of his, personal attendance on all dates would cause harassment to him and is also not necessary for the case. 3. The offence for which the Petitioner faces the trial is one u/s 406 I.P.C. By the time the petition for representation was filed, the case was pending before the learned Magistrate for amendment of the charge at the request of the prosecution. A reference to the order sheet shows that prior to it the Petitioner was being represented on each date u/s 317 Code of Criminal Procedure The impugned order passed on 11.7.88 does not state any reason for rejecting the petition u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure and merely refers to its previous order and the order of the Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 112/88. The previous order of the learned Magistrate dated 16.5.88 was to the effect of directing the Petitioner to be present personally on the next date fixed and on each subsequent dates. The Petitioner had approached the Sessions Judge in revision against such order but the same was dismissed as not maintainable holding that the Petitioner had not given in writing any reason as to why he could not appear personally on all dates and that no petition to such effect had also bean filed before the Magistrate. Thereafter the petition u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure was tiled before the learned Magistrate on 29.6.88 on which date the impugned order has been passed. 4. As is apparent from the facts stated above, there was absolutely no application of mind by the learned Magistrate to the facts stated in the petition. Thereafter the petition u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure was tiled before the learned Magistrate on 29.6.88 on which date the impugned order has been passed. 4. As is apparent from the facts stated above, there was absolutely no application of mind by the learned Magistrate to the facts stated in the petition. There was no direction in the order of the learned Sessions Judge to reject the petition, when presented, ipso facto and no reason had also been assigned in the order dated 16.5.88 dealing with the grounds stated in the petition u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure so as to reject the prayer. An order on the petition made u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure is expected to be dealt with judicially with reasons indicated for refusal of the prayer, In Sudhakar Dash Vs. Smt. Nirupama Mishra, it was observed: ...With the present day normal delay 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.... ...In matters of this nature, it is obligatory in the part of the Magistrate to indicate convicting reasons for refusing the prayer for representation by lawyer.... 5. It was incumbent upon the learned Magistrate have considered the grounds advanced in the petition whether they justify the dispensing with the attendance of the accused on each date and the necessity of compelling his personal attendance on each date in the trial. The trial itself has not yet begun and is pending for amendment of the charge. In that view of the matter, the order impugned must be quashed and the petition u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is however made clear that it is always open to the learned Magistrate, keeping in view the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure, to direct the personal attendance of the Petitioner any time, if it becomes necessary. With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed. Final Result : Allowed