JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code is directed against the order of learned Special Magistrate (Mobile) Camp Court Ladnun dated 17-4-93 whereby while rejecting the application for exemption of attendance of the petitioner. the learned Magistrate forfeited his bail bonds and also ordered to open proceedings under section 446 Criminal Procedure Code and further issued a warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner along with Budhapuri, Chunapuri, Shanker Puri, Kailash Puri, Sayar Puri and Narain Singh is facing trial for the offences under sections 147, 447, 323 and 341 Indian Penal Code which has been instituted on a complaint of Purna Ram dated 27-10-92 to the effect that the accused persons assaulted him and also levelled some allegations. The petitioner was enlarged on bail by the learned Magistrate on 4-12-92. The petitioner moved an application through his counsel for exemption of his attendance but the learned Special Magistrate (Mobile) rejected the same as stated above. Hence, this misc. petition. 3. Mr. Mathur learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has erred in rejecting the application as the charge may be read-over through his lawyer. He also submits that the petitioner is prepared to furnish an undertaking before the court below to the effect that whenever his personal attendance is required. he will appear before the Court and the Advocate appearing on his behalf is also prepared to fife an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court. He has placed reliance on Mahesh and Laxminarain v. The State of Raj., 1980 (5) RCC 379 . 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order 6. It is not in dispute that charge can be read over to the accused through his advocate and plea of the learned counsel for the accused can be recorded. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has been granted bail by the trial court and he has gone to abroad for livelihood. It is not in dispute that charge can be read over to the accused through his advocate and plea of the learned counsel for the accused can be recorded. 7. In the instant case, the petitioner has been granted bail by the trial court and he has gone to abroad for livelihood. Though it would have been proper, if prior to going abroad the petitioner had obtained exemption, however, it would not be just to get him arrested and compel him to personally attend the court as he is a labour and represented through his advocate and furthermore he is prepared to give an undertaking Under the circumstances, to secure the ends of justice, I deem it just and proper to exempt the personal attendance of the petitioner in the exercise of inherent powers under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. However, the petitioner is directed to file an undertaking that whenever occasion will arise, he will appear before the court below personally and his advocate will also file an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court. 8. In the result, the misc. petition is allowed. The personal attendance of the petitioner before the court below is exempted. The impugned order dated 17-4-93 is set aside to the extent of rejecting petitioner's application, forfeiting bail bonds and issuing warrant of arrest against him. However, the petitioner as well as his advocate are directed to file an undertaking to the satisfaction of the court and in view of the observations made above, that as and when directed he will appear before the court below. *******