Judgment Shashank Kumar Singh, J. 1. These applications arise out of the same order, as such, with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. 2. Present applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 2-12-1992 passed in Special Case No. 100 of 1990 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 1990 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna whereby learned Special Judge has been pleased to reject the applications of the petitioners under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for allowing them to be represented through their counsel during the trial and has also directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against them. 3. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to impress upon this Court, by going into the merit of the case, stating therein, that the petitioners firm were only acting as Agent and were commission holder and the actual agreement was entered into by the firm which is based in the United Kingdom and the State Government and the present firm of which the petitioners are partners only imparted training to the persons who were to inject the medicine and in lieu thereof were to receive 5% as commission. As such according to the learned counsel in the facts of the case, no criminal case at all is made against them. 4. To my mind, at this stage I am not required to enter into the merit of the prosecution case as it has not been challenged before this Court and the same is subject matter of trial before the Special Court and the same can be adjudicated at the proper moment by the competent court. The only point which has to be seen here is that as the petitioners have moved for exemption from personal appearance under Sec. 205 of the Code whether they should have been granted benefit under the said section by the learned Special Court or not and as to whether the Special Judge has erred in refusing the petitioners benefit under Sec. 205 of the Code. 5. Vivek Bhargava (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 357 of 1993), Satya Prakash Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2198 of 1993) and Pramod Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. 5. Vivek Bhargava (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 357 of 1993), Satya Prakash Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2198 of 1993) and Pramod Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2206 of 1993) who are the partners of the firm namely M/s. Industrial Medical Engineers, Caxton House, New Delhi, filed a petition before the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 100 of 1990 arising out of Vigilance P.S Case No. 54 of 1990 under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In their petitions for exemption from personal attendance, it had been contended that the petitioner Satya Prakash Bhargava has been suffering from heart disease and he had undergone by-pass surgery and it would be very difficult and hazardous for him to attend the court. As regards others namely Vivek Bhargava and Pramod Bhargava, it was contended that the former was incharge of the account and administration and marketing affairs while the latter were the managing partners and they had to travel throughout the would in connection with business affairs and as such, personal appearance in the court would entail tremendous difficulties and hardship on their pan and by which they would be adversely affected and the interest of the company would also be jeopardized. It was further contended that the petitioners undertake to appear in person in court whenever directed by the court after commencement of the trial. 6. In the present case, 1carnedSpecial Judge in his order dated 2-12-1992 has stated that though benefit of Sec. 205 of the Code has to be liberally extended in trivial and technical cases, and to such accused persons who are ladies, old and sickly persons, workers in factories, daily wage earners, other labourers and busy business people, but as the present case was not of a trivial and technical nature and as the petitioners were alleged to be involved in a big racket or scandal as they had hatched up a conspiracy with the officers of the Health Department of the State of Bihar to cause wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to themselves, as such, their prayer for exemption under Sec. 205 of the Code was refused. 7. 7. Being dissatisfied with and aggrieved by the aforementioned order, petitioners have moved the present applications. It has been stated by learned counsel that though petitioners were partners of Industrial Medical Engineers, registered at Delhi and operating not only throughout this country but also operating in other parts of the world and specially as one of the partners Satya Prakash Bhargava was an old and sick man and had gone by-pass surgery, as such the trial courts would have exercised its discretion in favour of the petitioners, as has been held by this Court and other courts that the said section should be extended liberally, and should has be granted exemption to the petitioners to appear through lawyer, specially in view of undertaking of the petitioners that in course of the trial if the personal appearance was required they would make themselves available if and when directed. 8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of Kerala High Court in the ease of Helen Rubber Industries Kottayasand others V/s. State of Kerala and others. Though, the present decision is of Single Judge in which the learned Judge has held as follows: "...When the accused are women labourers, wage earners and other busy men, courts should as a rule grant exemption from - personal appearance. Courts should see that undue harassment is not caused to the accused appearing before them." Reliance has also been made on a case reported in Ravi Singh and others V/s. State of Bihar. In the said case it has been held as follows: "An order refusing permission under Sec. 205 of the Code can, in appropriate cases, be agitated under the inherent powers of the High Court and the said power of the High Court can be exercised against an interlocutory orders also and the High Court can interfere in a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court or for securing the ends of justice." Reliance has also been made on a case reported in S.C. Jain V/s. State of Bihar. In the said case, the Magistrate though earlier had allowed the exemption to the petitioner of that case under Sec. 205 of the Code and as such, the petitioner of the said case was appearing through his counsel. In the said case, the Magistrate though earlier had allowed the exemption to the petitioner of that case under Sec. 205 of the Code and as such, the petitioner of the said case was appearing through his counsel. On 16-5-1981, when the counsel for the petitioner filed Hazri and he was informed by the Bench clerk that the case has been adjourned to 27.6.1981. On that date when the counsel for the petitioner went to the court to file Hazri, he was informed by the Bench clerk that the case was fixed for explaining the accusation to the accused in person and as such, when on 27-6-1981, a petition was filed by the counsel for the petitioner through his lawyer to explain the accusation, the same was rejected asking for the personal appearance of the petitioner and it was stated that if he does not appear on the next day, the earlier order of his exemption for the personal appearance under Sec. 205 of the Code would be cancelled and warrant of arrest issued. This court interfered in the said order and quashed the same as thy petitioner of that case was already represented through lawyer and accusation could have been explained to him, as he was representing his client. 9 The learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department, on the other hand, has stated that in cases where the prescribed punishment was of five years and more, no exemption under Sec. 205 of the Code can be granted. In this regard, he has relied upon a case reported in Jagadguru Sachianand Shankara Bharti Swami V/s. Siri Kudli Sringer Mutt State of Mysore,4 in which it has been held that where the offences alleged against accused are of a serious nature involving moral turpitute and punishment with imprisonment for some length, if the allegations are established by the prosecution, then, the question of status of accused while granting exemption cannot be considered. As such, according to learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department in the present case though one of petitioners is old and all of them were partners of M/s. Industrial Medical Engineers based outside Bihar still as the offences alleged are serious in nature, they cannot be allowed to get benefit under Sec. 205 of the Code. 10. As such, according to learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department in the present case though one of petitioners is old and all of them were partners of M/s. Industrial Medical Engineers based outside Bihar still as the offences alleged are serious in nature, they cannot be allowed to get benefit under Sec. 205 of the Code. 10. In the facts of the case, taking into consideration the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Vigilance Department and the case relied on by them and specially in the facts of the case as the petitioners, are being prosecuted as a partners of a firm and have not indulged in any act in their individual capacity and also the fact that the actual agreement was between the State Government and a firm based in United Kingdom and also taking into consideration that one of the petitioners Satya Prakash Bhargava is concerned as he is an old and infirm man who was undergone open heart surgery, as such, I am of the view that the Special Court should have granted benefit to him at least under Sec. 205 of the Code. 11. In the result his application succeeds, Cr. Misc. No. 2198 of 1993 is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Special Judge dated 2-12-1992 directing for his personal appearance as well as warrant of arrest issued against him are quashed and the court below is directed to grant exemption to the petitioner under Sec. 205 of the Code. 12. As far as other two applications i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 357 of 1993 and Cr. Misc. No. 2206 of 1993 are concerned, the petitioners of those Cr. Miscellaneous Petitions namely Vivek Bhargava and Pramod Bhargava, to my mind to meet the ends of justice, specially taking into consideration that they are partners of the Firms, a busy body, who have to travel throughout the world, they are directed to appear before the Special Judge, (Vigilance), South Bihar Patna within two weeks from today and in pursuance of order dated 2-12-1992 passed in Special Case No. 100/90 and if they appear before the said court, learned court shall enlarge them on bail on furnishing bail bond to its satisfaction and shall pass other necessary order as required. The warrant of arrest issued against them is quashed. 13. The warrant of arrest issued against them is quashed. 13. It is however, made clear that the abovementioned directions are subject to the undertaking to be given by the petitioners of all the three applications i.e. Cr. Misc. No. 357 of 1993, Cr. Misc. No.2198 of 1993 and Cr. Misc No. 2206 of 1993 before the trial court that they win make themselves available, in person, if and when required by the court. All the three applications are disposed of with the directions and observations made above Parties to bear their own costs.