Judgment The petitioners are accused in C.C.No.6 of 1988 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram. The prosecution against them, for offences tinder Secs.323, 294 and, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code, has been initiated by the respondent who is the Station House Officer, Chidambaram Town Police Station. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 6-6-1987 at about 5.00 P.M. The first informant is Sarjanraj, who is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.4700 of 1989 filed for impleading himself as a party respondent in Crl.M.P.No.3850 of 1989. 2. The first petitioner is a retired Secondary Teacher and obviously he appears to be a sick person, on the averments made. The second petitioner, a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon at Bhuvanagiri is the son of the First petitioner. 3. In the trial Court, they filed an application under Sec.205, Crl.P.C. seeking to be represented by their counsel and the trial Magistrate allowed their prayer and they were accordingly represented by a counsel. This order was passed on 5-2-1988. While so, on 3-3-1989 suo motu the trial Magistrate has passed an order in Crl.M.P.No.189 of 1988 revoking the permission already granted to the petitioners to appear through counsel. I find from the order of the Magistrate, that since the petitioners had already appeared earlier on three hearing dates and the proceedings had commenced, the personal attendance of the petitioners thenceforth, was deemed desirable. The order reads, that the first petitioner who must have improved his health and the second petitioner, who was working at a not distant place, could appear in court, especially when the examination of witnesses had commenced, and directed the future appearance of the petitioners before it, by revoking the original discretion exercised by the same court. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioners, who seek a direction to the trial Court to permit their appearance continuously through their counsel in the interests of justice. 4. Under Sec.205, Crl.P.C., the discretion of the Magistrate has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the circumstances of the case. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioners, who seek a direction to the trial Court to permit their appearance continuously through their counsel in the interests of justice. 4. Under Sec.205, Crl.P.C., the discretion of the Magistrate has to be exercised judiciously, keeping in view the circumstances of the case. Where the presence of the accused had been initially dispensed with on valid reasons and their identity is not challenged, unless there is a reasonable apprehension of the possible abscondence of the accused or their absence is likely to prejudice the prosecution, there can be no ground whatsoever to withdraw the exemption originally granted, on basis, which cannot be justified. This discretion vested in the Magistrate will have to be exercised liberally, on the relevant facts unfurled in each case. Cogent and convincing reasons will be necessary before erasing the original exercise of discretion and the necessity or desirability of the presence of the accused for any particular purpose, must be portrayed in the order itself. On the facts of this case, there appears to be no bar in allowing the petitioners to be represented through their counsel on the hearing dates, except when they have to be examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. which is a statutory obligation. The offences alleged against the petitioners are also not of a very serious nature. 5. I direct the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chidambaram not to insist on the presence of the petitioners before it during trial and it will be sufficient if they appear before the trial Magistrate for their questioning under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. and on the date of the pronouncement of the Judgment. This petition is allowed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.