JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - The grievance of the two Petitioners is that they art purdanashin ladies and besides Petitioner No. 1 is an old lady of sixty years and is completely bed-ridden which facts they disclosed in their petition 'dated 16-10-1985. before the learned Magistrate which having been accepted their representation u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed, but however they have been compelled by the impugned order without considering such facts, to appear in court merely because p.w.. 2. stated that though he knows some ladies to have taken part in the marriage function yet he can identity them only on their appearance in court. The case arises out of a complaint filed by the opposite party against seven accused persons including the Petitioners and her husband u/s 494/109, I.P.C. alleging her husband to have undergone a second marriage with accused No. 2. The case is at the stage of taking evidence before charge. Accused No. 2 had preferred against a similar order passed on 27-1-1988, Criminal Revision No. 298 of 1988 which was disposed of by order dated 16-8-1983 observing that it did not appear at that stage that the appearance of accused No. 2 was essentially...for the purpose of identification which question might come up for consideration after charge was framed and the learned Magistrate was directed to proceed with the case before charge call upon the complainant to examine her witnesses and consider the question,of framing of charge and that the question of appearance of accused No. 2 was left open to be considered at the stage of trial making it clear that the non-identification of accused No. 2 would not be a restraining factor for consideration so far as framing, of charge is concerned. 2. Mr. G Tripathy, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in assailing the order has urged that same considerations should also apply so far as the present, Petitioners are concerned and that further since the evidence of p.w. 2 is already over and he has been examined, cross-examined and' discharged, a petition would thereafter not lie to direct the Petitioners to appear for his identification and such step if at all could only have been taken keeping the,cross-examination of p. w, 2 pending. It has also been further contended that since the accused persons have not yet adopted any particular defence and the nature of defence to be adopted by them' would ultimately determine the necessity or otherwise of their, appearance in Court, the consideration whether the stage for their appearance in Court for the purpose of identification is necessary has not yet reached. It is also urged that since p.w. 2 does not know the identity of the Petitioners their appearance and identification in Court for the first time would be inherently risky for the defence as it would offer an opportunity to p.w. 2 to pick out the Petitioners for identification. 3. Contesting the petition, it has been urged by Mr. R. N. Mohanty the learned Counsel for the opposite party that the revision is not maintainable since the direction to the Petitioners to appear for the purpose of identification allowing the petition under Section, 205, Code of Criminal Procedure was made on 27-1-1988 and since that order has not been challenged by the Petitioners the impugned order dated 28-7-1988 is not open to be challenged. Besides, he also contends that without the appearance of the Petitioners the identification cannot be made and that the Magistrate would be in difficulty to consider whether charge is to be framed against the Petitioners or not. 4. The first submission made by Mr. Mohanty has no substance since even though an order was passed on 27.1-1988 directing appearance of the Petitioners, yet it appears that subsequent to it the learned Magistrate allowed petitions u/s 317, Code of Criminal Procedure from day to day and on 28-7-1988 passed order rejecting the petition filed on that day u/s 317. Cr.P.C.. The Petitioners having moved against such order, it cannot be said that the revision is not maintainable. 5. There is no denying .the fact that the Petitioners are purdanashin ladies and that Petitioner No. 1 is an aged lady. Such statements of the Petitioners were accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 16-10-1985. The question of appearance of purdanashin ladies before Court was considered by' this Court in Suruja Dei and Anr. v. Chandramani Sahu 37 197l C.L.T. 163 observing as follows: The normal rule is that the accused persons are bound to appear at the trial. Such statements of the Petitioners were accepted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 16-10-1985. The question of appearance of purdanashin ladies before Court was considered by' this Court in Suruja Dei and Anr. v. Chandramani Sahu 37 197l C.L.T. 163 observing as follows: The normal rule is that the accused persons are bound to appear at the trial. A special provision has been made u/s 205, Code of Criminal Procedure vesting powers in the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. The circumstances in which the discretion has to be 'used by the trying Magistrate have not been fettered by any statutory prescription. It is the settled view of Courts that in this country ladies, if they are purdanashin, should not be forced to appear before the Court unless their presence is very much necessary for the trial itself. There are cases where it has been stated that if identification has to be done, for the said purpose only witnesses may be asked to identify the female accused at a place different from the Court-Sometimes identification has been permitted even at the residence of the female accused and on other occasions at a place other than the Court. There are also cases where identification has been permitted in camera that is either in the chamber of the trying Magistrate or in the Court-hall after steps have been taken to ensure that it is not open to the public at large. 6. It is thus necessary that it the ladies are purdanaishin they should not be forced to appear in Court unless their presence is very much necessary for the trial itself. It is undoubtedly true that the position of purdanashin ladies has not remained the same in the developing society and that ladies these days appear much more frequently in the public and that the concept of purdanashin is gradually wearing out. Thus the normal rule being that accused should appear in Court unless the Magistrate in his discretion dispenses with his/her attendance a female accused is to appear in court subject to the consideration whether the accused is in fact a purdanashin lady and does not appear io public and that her presence is not really necessary for the purpose of trial and would otherwise be a source of harassment to her. 7. 7. P. w. 2 was examined on 24-2-1987 and was cross examined and discharged. A petition was thereafter filed to direct the Petitioners to appear. No petition has been filed as conceded by Mr. Mohanty to recall p.w. 2 for further examination for the purpose of identification of the Petitioners. The learned Magistrate in his order passed on 27-1-1988 observed that since p.w. 2 stated on oath that be can identify all the accused persons if he would See them, non-appearance of the Petitioners for the purpose of identification would prejudice the complainant. From such statement of p.w. 2 it does not appear that the stage has reached necessitating appearance of the Petitioners as essentially necessary for their identification. The complainant has not examined all her witnesses. It may be that after examination of such witnesses, the necessity of their appearance for the purpose would not, become necessary the apprehension of Mr. Tripathy that the Petitioners might be subjected to a process of speculative identification also cannot be ruled out. In that view of the matter, I would direct that the learned Magistrate, if appearance of the Petitioners is considered essentially necessary for the purpose of the case would first recall the witness and test him by putting question regarding the identifying features of the Petitioners so as to find out whether the witness has a genuine knowledge of identification of the Petitioners and thereafter if necessary direct the appearance of the Petitioners on a particular date to be fixed by him so as to summon the witnesses to identify them. The identification may preferably be done in the chamber of the learned Magistrate, Their appearance on all other dates thereafter may be dispensed with on proper representation. The lower Court records be sent back forthwith. 8. The revision is disposed of with the above direction.