A. K. DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant three Revisional Applications by the two - petitioners-accused (hereinafter referred to as accused) are directed against the orders dated 18. 4. 1992 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court at Calcutta, in Case Nos. C-227, 228 and 274 of 1992 before him on the grounds set forth therein. ( 2 ) IT appears from the record that on petitions of complaints med by the opposite-party No. 1 against the aforesaid two accused and another, being M/s. Safari Private Limited, on the allegations made therein for commission of alleged offence punishable under Section 5 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance and had issued processes against all the three accused persons therein directing them to appear before the Court on 24. 3. 1992. The two petitioners-accused had thereupon appeared before the Court on the said date and had been granted bail by the learned Magistrate on application made by them. The learned Magistrate as well appears to have allowed their applications under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) on the same very day dispensing with their personal attendance and permitting them to appear by their pleader in terms thereof. The petitioner No. 2, Bela sen, as well appears to have made an application praying for time to represent the third accused which was allowed by the learned Magistrate, fixing 18. 4. 1992 for its appearance. On the said adjourned date on 18. 4. 1992, the two accused herein were represented by their learned Advocate under Section 205 of the Code. Since no step was taken by the accused persons to represent the accused No. 1 M/s. Safari Private Limited the learned Magistrate had directed issue of warrant of arrest against the partners thereof and had also revoked his previous order allowing the two petitioners-accused herein to be represented by their Lawyer under Section 205 of the Code. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Magistrate on 18. 4. 1992, the petitioners have exercised this Court in Revision for the relief prayed for herein. ( 4 ) AS already indicated above, the learned Magistrate had allowed the application of the two petitioners-accused herein under Section 205 of the Code by his order dated 24. 3. 4. 1992, the petitioners have exercised this Court in Revision for the relief prayed for herein. ( 4 ) AS already indicated above, the learned Magistrate had allowed the application of the two petitioners-accused herein under Section 205 of the Code by his order dated 24. 3. 1992 despensing with their personal attendance and permitting them to appear by their Pleader. The mere fact that the third accused, the accused No. 1 M/s. Safari Private Limited, had failed to appear on the adjourned date on 18. 4. 1992 or that no step had been taken to represent it could hardly be a ground for revoking the earlier order passed by the learned Magistrate on 24. 3. 1992 allowing the application of the two accused-petitioner under Section 205 of the Code. The two accused- petitioners herein were under no legal liability to cause appearance/production of the third remaining absentee accused. If the said accused had absented from the Court without any justifiable ground despite due service of process upon it, it was open to the learned Magistrate to direct issue of process against it for compelling attendance before the Court, as he appears to have done by directing issue of warrant of arrest in his aforesaid impugned order dated 18. 4. 1992. But the absence of the said absentee accused could not conceivably be a lawful ground for revoking an order passed by him allowing the application of the petitioners accused under Section 205 of the Code, as the learned Magistrate did. ( 5 ) UPON the premises above, the aforesaid impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate could hardly be sustained as the same, on the face of it, appears to suffer from gross incorrectness, illegality and impropriety calling for interference by this Court in Revision. ( 6 ) IN the result, the relevant three Revisional Applications succeed. The impugned orders dated 18. 4. 1992 passed by the learned Magistrate in the relevant proceedings by accordingly hereby quashed. Interim stay granted by the order of this Court dated 27. 4. 1992, as subsequently extended stands vacated. Since the relevant three proceedings had remained stayed in view of the order of this Court for quite sometimes the learned Magistrate shall seek to proceed with the case with utmost expedition. Revision allowed.