Judgment A. M. Chaturvedi, J. 1. This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.2.95 passed by Sri M. J. Islam, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, patna in Complaint Case No.607 (C)of 1993 whereby the learned magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioners for appearance through their lawyer under Sec.205 of the Code of criminal Procedure. 2. It appears that opposite party no.2 Awadnesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint (annexure-1) on 4.7.94 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, patna alleging therein that on 12.10.93 the petitioners came to his shop at 10.30 A. M. and offered Super Stockist-ship of Tablets (India) Ltd. to him (op-posite party No.2) if he immediately paid Rs.2,39,000/- in cash and the (complainant) reluctantly gave a self-cheque No.5814187 dated 12.10.93 for rs.2,39,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, gandhi Maidan, Patna to petitioner no.1 who got the same encashed through petitioner No.3. Further allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant contacted the petitioner on various occasion and also wrote letters but he was neither awarded s. tockistship of Tablets (India)Ltd. nor the amount advanced by him was returned back to him and thus, he was cheated by the petitioners. 3. It appears from the petition that after enquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court below passed an order on 1.10.94 taking cognizance of offence under section 420/34 of the Indian- Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners. In pursuance of summons the petitioners appeared before the learned magistrate through their lawyer and filed a petition for allowing them to be represented through their lawyer under section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure. By the impugned order the learned magistrate rejected the petition of the petitioners and hence this petition under Sec.482, Cr. P. C. , for quashing the impugned order dated 23.2.95 and for allowing the petitioners to be represented through their lawyer under Sec.205, Cr. PC. 4. Referring to the complaint petition (annexure-1) it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 is chairman-cum-Managing Director of tablets (India) Ltd. , Madras and similarly, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are vice-President, General Manager and regional Manager, respectively of the said Company. PC. 4. Referring to the complaint petition (annexure-1) it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 is chairman-cum-Managing Director of tablets (India) Ltd. , Madras and similarly, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are vice-President, General Manager and regional Manager, respectively of the said Company. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that tablets (India) Ltd. , Madras is a reputed company of India which manufactures/produces medicines including life-saving drugs and the petitioners being senior executives of the company remain mostly on tour in various parts of the country and also outside for the purpose of trade and business of the company and under the circumstances their personal attendance in Court will be highly detrimental to the business and will cause serious losses to the company. It was also contended that the presence of the petitioners in Court on the dates fixed in the case is bound to effect regular and proper manufacture, supply and distribution of medicines including life-saving drugs manufactured by the company and under the circumstances their prayer for exemption from personal attendance and their representation through lawyer under Sec.205 of the Code of criminal Procedure deserves sympathetic consideration. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1979 b. B. C. J.437 in which Muneshwari sahay (J), as he then was, held that benefit of Sec.205, Cr. P. C. , should be extended to busy businessmen and industrialists. Undoubtedly, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners finds support from the bench decision of this Court, referred to above. 5. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that sub-section 2 of Sec.205 Cr. P. C. provides that 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 and the petitioners intend to attend the Court personally at the time of framing of charge, at the time of their examination under Sec.313 cr. P. C. , at the time of pronouncement of judgment and at any stage of proceedings if so directed by the learned magistrate. It was further contended that no prejudice would be caused if the petitioners are allowed to be represented by their lawyer under section 205, Cr. P. C. , at the time of pronouncement of judgment and at any stage of proceedings if so directed by the learned magistrate. It was further contended that no prejudice would be caused if the petitioners are allowed to be represented by their lawyer under section 205, Cr. P. C. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 invited the attention of the Court towards order dated 29.3.95 passed in this Criminal Misc. case and pointed out that at the time of admission of this case the learned counsel for the petitioners had informed this Court that the petitioners would be appearing before the judicial magistrate within two weeks but they have not done so and that being so, they do not deserve the benefit of representation through their lawyer under Section 205, Cr. P. C. In mis connection the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had already appeared before the learned magistrate through their lawyer and they would personally attend the Court whenever their personal attendance would be required by the learned magistrate. 7. It was further contended on behalf of the opposite party No.2 that an order passed under Sec.205, Cr. P. C. , rejecting the prayer for representation through lawyer is a revisable order and hence the Court should not exercise its inherent power under Sec.482, Cr. P. C. , in this regard. It may be pointed out that it has been held by madras High Court in a case reported in A. I. R.1947 Madras 433 that the high Court has ample power under section 482, Cr. P. C. , to direct the magistrate to dispense with the presence of the accused during an enquiry or trial before him. 8. It was further contended on behalf of the opposite party No.2 that warrant of arrest has been issued by the learned magistrate against the petitioners and hence the stage for exemption from personal attendance under Sec.205, Cr. P. C. is over. It may be pointed out that in the impugned order of the learned magistrate there appears nothing to show that warrant of arrest has been issued against the petitioners. Furthermore, there appears nothing in section 205 cr. P. C. , to show that the exemption from personal attendance cannot be considered merely because warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused. 9. Furthermore, there appears nothing in section 205 cr. P. C. , to show that the exemption from personal attendance cannot be considered merely because warrant of arrest has been issued against the accused. 9. It was lastly contended that cognizance has been taken under Section 420/34 I. PC. against the petitioners and hence it is not a case of trivial nature and so that impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is not fit to be interfered with. In this connection it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there appears nothing in Sec.205 cr. P. C to show that the benefit of section 205 Cr. P. C. can be given to accused only in cases of trivial nature and not in other cases. 10. It may be pointed out that while considering a petition under Sec.205 Cr. P. C. the Court should have regard to the circumstance of each case, the condition of the accused, the necessity of their personal attendance and interest of justice. Rejection of such a petition as a matter of policy is illegal and violative of the provisions. LJndisputedly the petitioners are senior executives of tablets (India) Ltd. which manufactures/produces medicines, naturally, the petitioners being senior executives are bound to undertake tour in connection with the trade and business of the company and that being so, their personal attendance in Court is likely to affect the business of the company, including regular and proper manufacture, supply and distribution of medicines. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the prosecution also if the prayer of the petitioners for allowing them to be represented through their lawyers under Sec.205 Cr. P. C. is allowed. 11. In the result, this Criminal misc. petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 23.2.95 passed by the learned magistrate is hereby quashed and the petitioners are allowed to be represented through their lawyer under Sec.205 Cr. P. C. However, it is made clear that the learned magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of proceedings direct the personal attendance of the accused petitioners, or if necessary, enforce such attendance. Cr. Petition allowed.