JUDGMENT 1. - These three petitions have been filed by the same petitioners against a common order dated 2-6-89 passed by the learned Magistrate in three different cases. 2. The petitioners are being prosecuted for not granting the award in favour of the non-petitioner No. 2. The petitioner were summoned by the learned Magistrate and an application Under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code was filed for exempting their personal attendance and granting permission to be represented by their counsel. That application in all the three cases had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate by this common order dated 2-6-89. 3. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the order. The petitioners are being prosecuted for a technical offence. Some award was given in favour of the respondents and the petitioners were to comply that award. According to the petitioners that award was passed ex-parte and they have moved the Court concerned for setting aside that ex-parte award and the proceedings are still pending there mean while, they have been prosecuted for not complying the award This matter is not of that nature where the presence of the petitioners should be enforced by the learned Magistrate. Non-compliance of the award is a technical offence Even the petitioners had moved to set aside the award. 4. Under these circumstances it was not justified and fair for the learned Magistrate to reject the application Under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code He could not have instead the personal presence of the petitioners on every hearing when they were properly represented by their counsel. 5. Under these circumstances the order of the learned Magistrate dated 2-6-89 cannot be sustained. 6. As a result, the petition is accepted. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 2-6-89 is set aside. The personal presence of the petitioners in all the three cases Nos. 905/88, 908/88 and 907/88 pending in the court of learned Magistrate is exempted and they are permitted to be represented by their counsel.Petition accepted. *******