JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been filed by the petitioner as his application to dispense with his attendance during the trial was rejected by the trial Magistrate vide order dated August 27, 1991. 2. The petitioner is facing trial under sections 448, 325 & 323 IPC in Cr. Case No. 162/90 in the court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu. All these offences are bailable and the petitioner was appearing in the trial court on all the dates of hearing. He, being an unemployed man, moved an application before the trial Magistrate on August 8, 1991 to dispense with his personal attendance in the aforesaid case as he wanted to go Saudi Arabia (Gulf country) to earn his livelihood. The application was supported by an affidavit, and it was also mentioned in the said application that his elder brother Radhey Shyam was working in Saudi Arabia and he had also got his visa for going to that country. 3. In the trial court, the charges were not framed, as the application of the complainant to take cognisance against Mala Ram and Khayali Ram was to be decided. In the application, the petitioner also stated that he was known to the prosecution witnesses and the question of his identification was not proved in the trial. According to him, he was only bread earner in his family which consists his wife, two minor children and old parents. 4. Unemployment is an alarming problem in the country specially in a district like Jhunjhunu which is under-developed having no industrialisation or irrigation facilities. We are also aware of the delays which are caused in the courts, specially in the trial court in deciding the cases. Whether, an unemployed person should be debarred to get employment in other countries simply because some criminal case is pending against him, is a question to be answered in this petition. 5. It is true that the petitioner left India for Saudi Arabia prior to seeking an order in his favour by the trial Magistrate, though, he had moved the application to dispense with his personal attendance earlier The learned trial Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that it was moved under section 205 Cr.PC while the provisions of S. 317 Cr.PC were applicable. In my view, the application of the petitioner should not have been rejected simply because a wrong provision of law was mentioned if otherwise, his personal attendance could have been dispense with. Section 317 Cr.PC reads as under : "317. Provision for inquirers and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.(1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he, thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately". 6. It cannot be disputed that the personal attendance of the petitioner can be dispensed with under this provision. The petitioner is being represented by a pleader in the trial court, and as such, he can appear through him. It is also not disputed before me that the charge/charges can be read over to his pleader and the plea of the accused can be recorded through him. As observed by me earlier, the trial in the case is likely to take time, as such, the trial Magistrate should have taken a practical approach based on humanitarian considerations. While dealing such applications, the trial court is expected not to ignore the hard facts of the life, which are prevailing in our country. The hard facts are that for an unemployed man, to get a job is not easy and that the trial of criminal cases in the court of Magistrate take much time, as our courts are heavily loaded with cases. In a similar situation, in S.B. Cr. Misc. The hard facts are that for an unemployed man, to get a job is not easy and that the trial of criminal cases in the court of Magistrate take much time, as our courts are heavily loaded with cases. In a similar situation, in S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 830/92 (Salim v. State of Rajasthan, decided on July 17, 92 ' I allowed the petition observing as under: "As stated earlier; the trial of the case has yet to began and it will take some time. It is true that the petitioner left India without seeking prior permission or order from the trial court, but, it was due to urgency. The petitioner had already purchased the air-ticket and had spent huge amount in case he had not gone, he would have suffered a great loss and the chances of his not getting the job in future were there. The petitioner, being an unemployed young man, was in dire necessity to get a job to earn his livelihood. In my view, on the technical ground that the petitioner did not seek prior permission of the Court, the application for exemption from personal attendance should not have been rejected by the Court. In such cases the court should take sympathetic and humanitarian approach keeping in view the employment conditions prevailing in the country specially in an under developed district like jhunjhunu. Consequently, I allow this petition. The order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 4-3-91 is hereby quashed. The application filed by the petitioner for his exemption from personal attendance is allowed. He may appear in the trial court through his counsel. It is however, made clear that whenever the court finds that the presence of the petitioner is absolutely necessary, it shall so direct to his counsel, giving sufficient time to the petitioner to appear in the Court". 7. The petitioner, in the instant case, had already left India, It will be a great injustice to him if he is called back from Saudi Arabia on the ground that he left without seeking prior order in his favour. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, as indicated above. I am of the view that the personal attendance of the petitioner in the trial court should be exempted Consequently, this petition is allowed. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, as indicated above. I am of the view that the personal attendance of the petitioner in the trial court should be exempted Consequently, this petition is allowed. The order of the trial Magistrate is set aside and the personal attendance of the petitioner during the trial is exempted. He can appear through his pleader. It is, however, made clear that the Magistrate trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused petitioner if it is absolutely necessary. In such a situation, sufficient time shall be given to the petitioner to appear in the court.Petition allowed. *******