Judgment N. L. TIBREWAL, J. ( 1 ) A short question of dispensing with personal attendance of the petitioners, in a criminal case, needs consideration in the present petition. This question has assumed importance these days, as trial in criminal cases takes long time and, even in petty matters, the accused are forced to attend the Court for years together. The matter, therefore, requires serious consideration to provide guidance to the Subordinate Courts. ( 2 ) THE circumstances leading up to filing of the present petition under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. , may be narrated. For an incident, which took place on February 23, 1989 two cross reports were lodged at Police Station, Chomu. On the report made on behalf of the petitioners, Crime No. 59189 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323 and 324, IPC and, after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on June 20, 1989 against the members of the complainant-party. Crime No. 60/89 was registered under Sections 148, 149, 323 and 379, IPC on the report made by the complainant Ram Narayan, in which the police submitted a negative report, which is popularly known as Final Report The concerned Magistrate however did not agree with the conclusions of the investigation, hence further investigation was directed by him vide order dated September 7, 1989. After further investigation, the police again came to the same conclusion that the incident did not take place in the manner as was stated by the complainant. For the injuries, which were simple and superficial in nature, sustained by some members of the complainant-party, it was stated in the report that the same might be caused in the exercise of right of private defence of person of the members of the opposite-party. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant, did not accept the final report of the police and took cognizance for the offence under Sections 147, 323 and 224, IPC. All these offences, though arc triable as a summons case, but the learned Magistrate, instead of issuing summons, in the first instance, issued bailable warrants to procure attendance of the petitioners. On July 31, 1992, an application u/sec. 205 (1) Cr. All these offences, though arc triable as a summons case, but the learned Magistrate, instead of issuing summons, in the first instance, issued bailable warrants to procure attendance of the petitioners. On July 31, 1992, an application u/sec. 205 (1) Cr. P. C. was moved by the petitioners through their Counsel, in which a prayer was made to dispense with their personal attendance and permit them to appear by their Advocate. For the women-accused, it was stated in the application that they were Pardanashin and avoid to appear at public places and they,were falsely implicated to be maligned. For Smt. Sajan and Smt, Gunji, it was also stated that they were suffering from high blood pressure. For Om Prakash and Girdhari, it was stated that they were students and were attending classes. For the rest of the accused, it was stated that they were agriculturists and remain engaged in the agricultural operations from morning to evening. In the application, it was also stated that no dispute of identification of the accused was involved in the matter and the accused could be properly defended by their Counsel. The complainant did not file any reply to the above application and the facts narrated in the application by the petitioners, remained uncontroverted. The learned Magistrate, however, rejected the prayer of the petitioners by the impugned order, observing that no proof was placed on the record about the fact that the ladies were Pardanshin or were suffering from any illness or that Om, Prakash and Girdhari were students. ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Bajpai, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that the whole approach of the learned Magistrate in deciding the matter was erroneous and that in the background of the entire facts, he should have taken a liberal view in granting exemption. Learned Counsel contended that in Rajsthan, ladies do not consider it to be good thing to appear in Court of Law and there is feeling amongst them that they could be looked down, if they appeared in the Court. It was urged that there feelings should not be hurt in a trivial matter like the present one. For Male accused, it was contended that all the family members have been implicated by the complainant with an oblique motive to harass them. It was urged that there feelings should not be hurt in a trivial matter like the present one. For Male accused, it was contended that all the family members have been implicated by the complainant with an oblique motive to harass them. They are agriculturists by profession and would suffer irreparable Joss, if they were forced to attend the Court on all dates of hearing. On the other hand, two fold submissions were wade by Mr. Goyal learned Counsel appearing for the complainant. In the first place, it was argued that the Magistrate has issued bailable warrants to secure attendance of the accused and the provisions of Sec. 205 (1), Cr. P. C. , are not attracted. Then, it was contended that the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion in the matter and this Court should not interfere in exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) THE Criminal Procedure Code (1973 (for short, Cr. P. C.) had made provisions for dispensing with personal attendance of the accused at different stage of the case. Sec. 205 (1) empowers the Magistrate to pass such order at the initial stage, while issuing summons, and Sec. 317 enables him to dispense with personal attendance of the accused at any stage of inquiry or trial. Sec. 205, Cr. P. C. , reads as under: p205 Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused: (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion at any stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of the accused, and if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided. The above Section makes it clear that even at the initial stage of issuing summons, it is open to the Magistrate not to insist on the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. Then Sec. 317, Cr. The above Section makes it clear that even at the initial stage of issuing summons, it is open to the Magistrate not to insist on the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. Then Sec. 317, Cr. P. C. provides as under: p317 Provision for inquiries 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 any 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 interest 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, and 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. A joint reading of Sections 205 and 317, Cr. P. C. makes it clear that the Court has been empowered to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused at all stages. While Section 317, Cr. P. C. covers the stage after the commencement of inquiry or trial, Section 205 deals with commencement of the proceedings before the Magistrate thereby indicating that for proper reasons, the presence of the accused could be dispensed with right from the initial stage. The Code specifically provides in Section 205 that even for the first appearance, the Court, for reasons could dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by a pleader. It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that nothing should take place behind the back of the accused and the Court should take all steps to ensure that a fair trial is given to him. It is on the basis of the principle that the accused is required to be present during the trial. It is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that nothing should take place behind the back of the accused and the Court should take all steps to ensure that a fair trial is given to him. It is on the basis of the principle that the accused is required to be present during the trial. No-where in the Code, we find that the accused has to be present at each and every hearing of the case. Where presence of the accused is necessary during inquiry or trial, it has been specifically provided in the Code. ( 6 ) IT is true that in the present case, the Magistrate has issued bailable warrants to secure attendance of the petitioners. As stated earlier, all offences for which cognizance was taken against the petitioners, are bailable and triable as a summons case, as none of them is punishable for imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. I am of the opinion that the Magistrate committed an error in issuing a warrant in the first instance when he could have issued summons only. The fact that the Magistrate, instead of treating the case as a summons case, has wrongly issued bailable warrants, is no grounds for insisting on personal appearance of the accused. Section 317, Cr. P. C. also confers power on the Courts to dispense with personal appearance of the accused by necessary implication and a Magistrate has jurisdiction to exempt personal attendance of the accused under this provision also. I therefore do not find any substance in the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the complainant the personal attendance of the petitioners could not be exempted as bailable warrants were issued to them in the first instance. ( 7 ) NOW, further question for consideration is in what cases, the power to dispense with personal attendance of the accused should be exercised by a Court of Law? At the out-set, it may be stated that no hard and fast rule can be laid down for the exercise of this power and each case will have to be considered after giving due weight to the attendant circumstances. Ordinarily, the Court should be generous and liberal in exempting the accused from personal appearance except in cases of sedous nature, an a cases of moral turpitude. Ordinarily, the Court should be generous and liberal in exempting the accused from personal appearance except in cases of sedous nature, an a cases of moral turpitude. The Court should consider the nature of accusation and the prejudice, if any, likely to be caused if personal attendance is made compulsory. Therefore, in trivial criminal cases, personal attendance of the accused should be exempted as a rule, if no prejudice was likely to be caused in the fair trial. The Court has to weigh inconvenience to be caused to the accused, if he is required to be absent from his vocation, profession, trade or occupation by calling him for attendance in the Court, against the prejudice likely to be caused, if he does not appear in the Court. I am also of the view that the Court should normally dispense with personal attendance of a woman accused. In Rajasthan, it is not taken to be good thing for the ladies to appear in a Court of law and there is feeling amongst the ladies that they would be socially looked down, if they appear in the Court. Even if a lady is not Pardanashin the Court should not unnecessarily hurt her feelings and her personal attendance should be exempted unless her presence is very much necessary in the case. ( 8 ) THERE is one more reason for exercising the discretion in favour of an accused to dispense with his/her personal attendance. It is our general experience that due to heavy work load of cases, an inquiry or trial, in a criminal case takes long time then the expected one. Accused persons remain sitting out-side Courts from morning to evening in wait for the call of their cases, but without effective hearing for want of time. False implication is becoming a tendency these days and it is open seen that all male and female members are involved in a criminal case. The present case is one of that type where all the male and female members have been made accused by the complainant. In such cases, the Court should be extra generous in granting exemption to the accused from their personal attendance, especially when their identification is not in dispute. At this juncture, I would also like to express my concern over the lack of even minimum amenities to the litigating class in Court premises. In such cases, the Court should be extra generous in granting exemption to the accused from their personal attendance, especially when their identification is not in dispute. At this juncture, I would also like to express my concern over the lack of even minimum amenities to the litigating class in Court premises. At most of the places, there are no litigants shades to provide shelter to the litigating class from the scorching sun, dust storms and rains etc. At some places, no toilet facility is available, which is must for a lady litigant appearing in the Court. Similarly at some places, there is no arrangement for drinking water. In such pitiable conditions, I see no reason why personal exemption should not be granted liberally to the accused and, as a rule, personal attendance of a lady accused should be dispensed with unless, it would cause prejudice to a fair trial in the case. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the police has submitted a final report. In the incident, some of the petitioners had sustained much more injuries of serious nature and a charge-sheet has been filed against the members of the complainant party for various offences, including one u/sec. , 307, IPC. All the petitioners belong to one family and it appears that all adult male and female members have been made accused. The possibility of false implication to harass them cannot be ruled out. The offences are of trivial nature and triable as a summons case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Magistrate did not exercise the discretion, judiciously, while rejecting the petitioners prayer to dispense with their personal attendance. If a discretion is not exercised in a judicious manner, in a matter like the present one, this Court can exercise power u/sec. 482, Cr. P. c. Smt. Kaushilya and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Another, and Smt. Sajan Kaur v. State of Rajasthan. ( 10 ) IN the result, the petition deserves to be allowed and it is, hereby, allowed. The impugned order dated January 8, 1993, passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The Magistrate is directed to dispense with the personal attendance of the petitioners, till such time, as their appearance is considered by him necessary in the interest of justice. Petition allowed.