JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have moved this petition Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 12.1.1996 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Mavli in Cr. Case No. 938/92 whereby the application of the petitioners Under Sections 205 Read With 317 Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed.Briefly stated, it is sufficient to mention that the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners and other co-accused persons by order dated 10.6.1992 Under Sections 147, 457, 427 & 323 Indian Penal Code, and issued bailable warrants for securing their attendance. The bailable warrants were served but the petitioners did not appear in the Court and an application Under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code was presented for granting the exemption from attendance through counsel. This application was rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not appear in spite of service of bailable warrants. Moreover, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for non-bailable offences and exemption could be granted as they should at least put up appearance in the first instance. Therefore the learned Judicial Magistrate was of the view that without appearance in the first instance it was not proper to grant exemption. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that all the petitioners are ladies and generally their attendance in the Court should not be insisted upon, particularly, when the cognizance of the offences taken are not of serious or heinous nature. They will appear in the Court as and when directed by the trial Court. The petitioner Vidhya Devi is an old lady suffering from blood pressure. Other petitioners are household ladies and their presence at their residences is in the interest of their children and other members of the family. The petitioners Pankaj and Madhu are living in their matrimonial house. Therefore, it is urged that in view of the above facts and circumstances the learned Judicial Magistrate has not properly exercised its jurisdiction and has erred in rejecting the application. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any medical certificate about sickness of petitioner No. 2 Smt. Vidhya Devi. They have not put appearance in spite of service of the bailable warrants. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioners have not produced any medical certificate about sickness of petitioner No. 2 Smt. Vidhya Devi. They have not put appearance in spite of service of the bailable warrants. It is further contended that the petitioners should first appear in the Court and then they can claim their right for exemption of attendance by filing a regular application Under Section 205 Criminal Procedure Code. 4. I have considered the rival submissions. In Sajjan Kanwar v. State of Raj., reported in 1991WLN (1) Page 139 , this Court has observed "In the cases where the accused are "PARDANASHIN" ladies and if the presence of the accused in the Court is not necessary for her being identified and there is no apprehension of her absconding and the absence of the accused from the Court is not likely to seriously prejudiced the complainant, the discretion in granting the exemption should be liberally used and the personal attendance of the ladies should be exempted. In such cases, their appearance through an advocate should be allowed unless the personal attendance of the accused is necessary in the interest of justice." 5. The above decision fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the application of the petitioners for their exemption through counsel should be accepted. In this case also there is no controversy about identification, there is no apprehension of their absconding, and their exemption from attendance is not going to seriously prejudice the complainant. The offences under which the cognizance has been taken are also not of serious or heinous nature. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order dated 12.1.1996 should be set aside and the application for exemption of attendance must be accepted. 6. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.1.1996 is set aside, and the application for exemption of the petitioners attendance dated 5.1.1996 filed by the petitioners in Cr. Case No. 938/92 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Mavli is hereby accepted, and their personal attendance is exempted through their counsel on submitting an undertaking by their learned counsel that they will not dispute the identity of the petitioners by the witnesses. Case No. 938/92 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Mavli is hereby accepted, and their personal attendance is exempted through their counsel on submitting an undertaking by their learned counsel that they will not dispute the identity of the petitioners by the witnesses. They will further give in writing that the petitioners shall attend the Court as and when directed by the Trial Court in the interest of justice and for conducting proper trial. The petition is disposed of accordingly.Petition Allowed. *******