Judgment A.K.Ganguly, J. 1. This Revision petition was filed impugning the order dated 12th April, 1995 passed by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate at Singhbhum (West) in Crl. Case No. 26 of 1992. 2. For the decision of the points in controversy in this petition, detailed consideration of the fact is not necessary. Only the facts of the case may be noted as follows : "This complaint case has been filed on 29th June, 1992 against the petitioner and two other persons before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela alleging offences under Sections 323, 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance on the basis of the said complaint was taken only in respect to an offence under Section 323 of the IPC." 3. In connection with the said case the petitioner filed an application under Section 205 of the CrPC praying therein for exemption from personal appearance and for being represented through the lawyer. The said prayer was allowed by the SDJM on 19th December, 1993. Again on a subsequent prayer made on 2nd February, 1994 to the effect that the lawyer may be allowed to represent the petitioner at the stage of taking plea under Section 251 of the CrPC. The learned Magistrate allowed that prayer also. 4. Finally a prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner to represent her through a lawyer in regard to the statement made under Section 313, CrPC. The said prayer of the petitioner was turned down by the Magistrate by an order dated 12th April, 1991 holding inter alia that the said order of refusal was passed in the ends of justice. The view of the learned Magistrate from the impugned order appears to be that at the stage of regarding statement under Section 313, CrPC the prayer for exemption from personal appearance and representation through lawyer cannot be entertained. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this matter has drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Chandrawati Devi and others V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1983 PLJR page 209. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in this matter has drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Chandrawati Devi and others V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1983 PLJR page 209. In that case the learned Judge held that for the ends of justice the personal attendance of an accused petitioner can be, in a petty case involving the ladies of the house, dispensed with at the stage of making charge and even at the time of delivering of the judgment if the sentence be one of fine. The said judgment is not directly relevant to the points at issue in this case The attention of this Court has also been drawn to the another judgment in the case of Vivek Bhargava and others V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1995 (1) East CrC page 607. There also the learned Judge has been pleased to hold that the accused being an old and infirm person and having undergone heart surgary is entitled for the benefit under Section 205 of CrPC. 6. There cannot be any dispute about these proposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid two decisions. The aforesaid decisions are not directly relevant in the facts and circumstances of this case. Here the question is whether the presence of an accused can be dispensed with at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 of the CrPG. In a decision in the case of Chandulal Chandraker V/s. Purnamal and others reported in 1988 SCC (Criminal) page 907 : 1990 East CrC 129 (SC), the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held thatlas the accused in that case before their Lordships recorded a statement before that he will not raise any question of prejudice caused to him for exemption under Section 313 of the CrPC in the subsequent stage of trial appeal or revision, the request of the accused for exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court for recording the statement under Section 313 can be accepted and direction was accordingly given. There is also a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court which directly deals with this question which is reported in 1993 (SCC) Crl. 885 in a case of Usha K. Pillai V/s. Union of Union and others. There is also a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court which directly deals with this question which is reported in 1993 (SCC) Crl. 885 in a case of Usha K. Pillai V/s. Union of Union and others. In the said case, while considering the provisions of Section 313 of the CrPC and particularly with reference to the provisions of Section 313(1)(b) read with proviso, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the said proviso was added with a view to enabling the Court to dispense with the examination of the accused under clause (b) in a summons case, if High Court has already dispensed with his or her personal attendance at an earlier point of time. The Honble Supreme Court further held that the Magistrate can dispense with the mandatory requirement of clause (b) only in a summons case and not in a warrant case. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid interpretation. 7. In the instant case it is not in dispute that this is a summons case, inasmuch as, cognizance has been taken only in respect of an offence under Section 323 of the IPC. In that view of the matter and having regard to the clear appreciation of the law made by the Supreme Court in the case of Usha K. Pillai (supra), this Court is of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 18th April, 1995 cannot be sustained. The said order is therefore, set aside, and this application is allowed. The Magistrate is directed to allow the prayer of the petitioner to be represented through a lawyer at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. Q