JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, who is the Managing Director of M/s. Climate System India Ltd., has filed this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code to dispense with his personal attendance in Criminal Case No. 270-A/94 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate 1st Class Tijara under the following circumstances. 2. In short the facts of the case are that the Senior Inspector, Factories & Boilers, Bhiwadi has filed a complaint against the petitioner and one Ashu Sagar under the Factories Act, 1948. There is no dispute that the charges against the petitioner are not of serious nature and the offences are triable as summons case. The petitioner moved an application before the trial Magistrate under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code to exempt his personal attendance in the case, but the said prayer was rejected vide order dated March 4,1995. The learned Magistrate has observed in the order that the charges against the petitioner are not of serious nature, but still he declined the petitioner to grant exemption from personal attendance. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. has been filed. 3. The contention of the learned counsel is that the offences, under which, the complaint has been filed are triable as summons case and they are of petty nature concerning with some irregularities in the factory premises. It was also contended that the petitioner is a foreign national and to compell him to attend the Court on all dates of hearing would cause him great inconvenience, besides huge monetary loss. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner can be properly represented and defended by his counsel and there is no impediment in exempting his personal attendance. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the trial Court has power to dispense with personal attendance of the petitioner under section. 205 Criminal Procedure Code in the instant case. Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code reads as under:- "205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused:-(1) Whenever Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reasons so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate enquiring 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 hereinabove." 5. (2) But the Magistrate enquiring 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 hereinabove." 5. In M.M. Lal & Ors. v. Water (Prevention of Pollution) Board, reported in 1993 (2) RLR 708 it has been observed as under:- "2. I need not go into the details and the reasons given by the petitioners for not appearing on each date of hearing. While disposing the application under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code. it is not necessary that the matter should be considered as if a decision is being given about the guilt or innocence of the accused. Attending cases on each date of hearing is not a punishment provided under the Indian Penal Code, though in practice it is a torture to remain present in crowded court-rooms waiting for the case to be called. If the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate thinks that is this way he can make petitioners to suffer some punishment then his concept is not in consonance with the criminal jurisprudence. Whether a person should be granted exemption from personal attendance would depend upon the reasons given by him. The petitioner No. 1 is 70 years old person and based at Delhi. The petitioner No. 2 has been transferred to another unit while the petitioner No. 3 has left the company and working with some other firm at Gurgaon Where there are grounds for claiming exemption from personal attendance, they can be allowed to appear through pleader. Whereas, petitioner No. 4 who is posted at Alwar can attend the case on all dates of hearing." 6. In Gopal Ram & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1994 RCC 200 had an occasion to consider the scope and ambit of Section 205(1) and 317 Criminal Procedure Code which provide dispensation from personal attendance of the accused. While dealing with the scope of Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code, this Court has also considered as to in which cases the power to dispense with personal attendance of the accused should be exercised by a Court of law. This Court has observed as under:- "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 ? This Court has observed as under:- "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 attendance circumstances. Ordinarily, the Court should be generous and liberal in exempting the accused for personal appearance except in cases of serious nature 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 per 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 longer time than the expected one. Accused-persons remain sitting outside 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 often 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. False implication is becoming a tendency these days and it is often 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." 7. As stated earlier, the petitioner is a foreign national and the charges against him are of trivial nature. To compell him to attend all dates of hearing would also cause great inconvenience, loss of time and huge money. The petitioner can be properly represented and defended by a lawyer of his choice and there is no impediment to permit him to appear by this counsel. 8. The learned trial Court has given no sound reason for not granting dispensation with personal attendance of the petitioner. 9. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside. The concerned Court shall permit the petitioner to appear through his pleader. However, he will appear in the Court as and when so directed, otherwise his attendance shall be enforced in accordance with law. This order will come in force after the petitioner submits a surety of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Magistrate with a stipulation that he shall appear in the Court as and when so directed. It is also made clear that the substance of accusation made be read over and stated to the petitioner's counsel who shall be free to plead guilty on behalf of the petitioner after necessary instructions from him. 10. The petition stands disposed of, as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******