Judgment OM PRAKASH, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner, a female partner of a company at Kodarma but residing at New Delhi, is involved in a case under Section 22-A of the Minimum Wages Act, an offence punishable with fine upto Rs. 500/- on the basis of a complaint, dated 20-12-1981. Her husband and a co-accused pleaded guilty and his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. was recorded. He has been fined Rs. 300/-. 3. Thereafter on 23-9-1991, the petitiones filed an application praying that she be allowed to confess through her lawyear. Her such prayer has been rejected by the subdivisional Judicial Magistrate on the ground that she has not yet appeared in the Court (in person). 4. Court should try and dispose of cases as expeditiously and speedily as possible according to law causing minimum harrasment and least expenses to the litigants. Ordinarily, Court should not insist on personal attendance of female accused residing at distant places and involved in petty offences punishable with fine (of moderate amount) specially when the case is old and pending for many years. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and quashed. The learned Judicial Magistrate is directed to consider the prayer of the petitioner for pleading guilty through her lawyear, if renewed keeping in view the nature of the offence and the circumstance of the case. 6. The Cr. Misc. case is allowed with the above direction.