This revision petition arises from the order of the Judicial Magistrate of the first class Sibsagar made OH 28.4.1989 in CR Case No 779C of 1980 rejecting the prayer of the petitioners Smti Sarbeswari Das and Smti Minu Das for dispensing with their examination under section 313(1)(b), Cr PC in view of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 313, CrPC on the ground that the accusation against them is under section 323, IPC which is a summons-case, and that the Court has dispensed with their personal attendance. It is stated in their application for exemp­tion from examination that the petitioner Sarbeswari Das is an ailing woman and the petitioner Minu Das is living with her husband in an interior village in Hojai, District, Nagaon. The Magistrate rejected the prayer mainly on the ground that the case was not tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of summons-case, that is, the trial was not under Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offence under section 323, IPC is punishable with im­prisonment not exceeding one year and, therefore, it is a summons case. The Court also has dispensed with the personal attendance of the petitioners, proviso to sub-section (1) of section 313, CrPC does not relate to the procedure for the trial but it refers to the offence. 3. A summons-case can be tried in accordance with the procedure for the trial of warrant-cases (see section 259, CrPC). A reading of the proviso indicates that it refers to the offence and not to the procedure for the trial of the offence. In this view of the matter, the learned Magistrate has exercised her jurisdiction illegally. 4. The next question 'which arises for consideration is wh­ether in a summons-case where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, the examination of the accused can be dispensed with under proviso to section 313(1) CrPC on the facts and circumstances of the case. The object of section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circums­tances appearing against him in the evidence. It is in the in­terest of justice and to enable the Court to decide the question of guilt of the accused. The examination of the accused under section 313,CrPC is an important one. The object of section 313 is to enable the accused to explain any circums­tances appearing against him in the evidence. It is in the in­terest of justice and to enable the Court to decide the question of guilt of the accused. The examination of the accused under section 313,CrPC is an important one. Answers given by the accused can be used both in his favour or against him, as provided under section 313 (4), CrPC. If the petitioners do not like to answer the question and/or to avail themselves of the opportunity under section 313, CrPC. it is at their own risk. It may also be noted that the accused-petitioners cannot be punished for refusing to answer the question as is provided under section 313(3), CrPC. However, the proviso makes the intention of the legislators clear that where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused in a summons-case, their examination under clause (b) of section 313 (1) may be dispensed with. Considering the facts and circums­tances of the case, the impugned order is set aside, and if the appearance of the petitioners Smt. Sarbeswari Das and Smti Minn Das are still under exemption, their examination under section 313 (b) may be dispensed with. With the said observation and direction, the petition is disposed of. The office shall communicate this order to the Magistrate concerned.