JUDGMENT 1. After having failed to obtain an order for dispensing with his personal attendance in Sessions case No. 257/92, pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, the petitioner has approached to this Court under section 482 Cr. P.C. to get the same relief. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Fertilizer Inspector, Shri Jitendra Kumar inspected the godown of Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Limited, Bhawani Mandi on 6.9.88 and took sample of single suger phosphate (Om Brand) fertilizer from a bag and the same was sent for chemical examination to the office of Fertilizer Quality Control Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur. It appears that the sample was found of non-standard on analysis inasmuch as P205 was found 15.2% instead of 16% in the fertilizer. Thereafter, the Fertilizer Inspector made a report to the S.H.O. PS-Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar on 22.12.88 alleging therein that Shri Vatsa Raj Jain, the Vysthapak of Kraya Vikray Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Bhawani Mandi had committed an offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and a case be registered against him. On receipt of this report, Crime No. 25/89 was registered under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against Shri Vatsa Raj Jain and the petitioner on or about Dec. 30, 91. The petitioner was impleaded as an accused in the capacity of his being Managing Director of Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd. Udaipur having its head office at Bombay. It is noteworthy that the petitioner was granted pre-arrest bail under section 438 Cr. P.C. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions Judge, Jhalawar where the same is pending for trial. The petitioner has also appeared in the court of the learned Sessions Judge and submitted bail bonds in the sum of र 10,000/- as directed by the said court for his appearance in the case. He also moved an application to dispense with his personal attendance which was rejected by order dated January 20, 1993. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to dispense with his personal attendance in Sessions Case No. 257/92 (State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash and another) pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer to dispense with his personal attendance in Sessions Case No. 257/92 (State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash and another) pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the presence of the petitioner during the trial is not at all necessary for deciding the case on merits. It was contended that the sample was not taken from the petitioner but he was impleaded as an accused in the capacity of his being Managing Director of M/s. Hindustan Agro Chemicals Ltd. Udaipur. Counsel argued that the petitioner resides at Bombay and he is awefully busy in his business affairs that it would cause great inconvenience and loss if he is compelled to attend each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner will appear before the trial court when the charge shall be read and explained to him to plead guilty or not. He further submits that the petitioner shall also appear when his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. shall be recorded and as and when he shall be called by the trial court. It was contended that the accusation against the petitioner is based on vicarious liability and the deficiency found in the sample is also not of serious nature. 4. It may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the prayer of the petitioner by mere observing that the case is of a serious nature without further going in the merits. 5. It is our general experience that criminal trials in sessions cases are not completed expeditiously even in case where the accused and in jail. The case was registered in the year 1989, the challan was filed in the year 1991 and about two years are going to pass but still the trial has yet to commence. This shows that the trial is likely to take considerable time. I am also convinced that the presence of the petitioner is not necessary at all for the proper trial in the case. This shows that the trial is likely to take considerable time. I am also convinced that the presence of the petitioner is not necessary at all for the proper trial in the case. Merely because the petitioner is an accused in a case for the offence under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, it could hardly be a ground for refusing the exemption from personal attendance to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking before the trial court that he will present himself when the charge shall be read over and explained to him under section 228 Cr. P.C., or, his statement shall be recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C., or, as and when the trial court shall direct him to be present in the case. 6. Consequently, I allow this petition. The impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing to exempt the personal attendance of the petitioner is set aside and it is directed that the petitioner may be allowed to appear in the trial court through his counsel during the trial in the case. The petitioner or his counsel shall also file an undertaking that the petitioner will present himself in court at the time of recording his plea under section 228 Cr. P.C. or recording his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. and as and when he shall be directed by the trial court to appear in the court.Petition allowed. *******