J. G. CHITRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 1096, of 1996, 1097 of 1996, 1098 of 1996, 1097 of 1996, 1099 of 1996 and 1100 of 1996 as the parties are same and the relief sought is identical. ( 2 ) THE order passed by the trial Court as well as annexures to this petition have been perused. The medical certificate given by Dr. D. Mukherji, Physician and Cardiologist, Indore shows that the petitioner has undergone by-pass surgery at Houston, Texas, U. S. A. in June 1983. However, his test was positive. He gets angina on any significant exertion. It also shows that present petitioner has irregular heart action for which he takes regular medicines. The certificate further shows that the petitioner had unstable angina on 13th April 1994 and on 7th May 1994 in spite of adequate medical treatment and was required to be admitted in I. C. C. U. on both occasions. It has been mentioned in the said certificate that the petitioner continues to get angina at rest frequently is spite of complete medical treatment including Anticoagulant. It further shows that the petitioner gets left ventricle failure occasionally and has been advised to avoid any mental and physicalstress and to avoid travelling out of Indore. Dr. D. Mukerji is a reputed cardiologist of Indore. ( 3 ) SECTION 205 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (herein after referred to as the Code for convenience) provides that whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. Sub-Section (2) 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 in manner hereinbefore provided. This provision is applicable to present case because it is a summons case. ( 4 ) SHRI Bagadiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two of the accused persons namely Chandmal Agarwal and Mansukhlal Shah have expired. This provision is applicable to present case because it is a summons case. ( 4 ) SHRI Bagadiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that two of the accused persons namely Chandmal Agarwal and Mansukhlal Shah have expired. It is the argument of Shri Bagadiya that if the petitioner is required to attend the trial Court at Ujjain in the present case and other cases in respect of breach of the provisions of Provident Fund Act, there are very few chances of the petitioner returning without getting substantial damage to his health and safety. ( 5 ) KEEPING in view the age of the petitioner and the disease by which he is suffering and the symptoms indicated by the medical certificate of Dr. D. Mukerji, a cardiologist, the learned Magistrate should have used his discretion which has been indicated by provisions of Section 205 (1) of the Code. When the discretion has been granted to the trial Court, it has to be used keeping in view the circumstances of the case. Age of the accused, seriousness of the allegations made against him, his health, the possibility of accused absconding, the time which the trial is likely to take are the factors which should be considered. When the accused is not hardened criminal and is not likely to abscond, the discretion which has been provided by Section 205 of the Code should be used by the trial Court benevolently when such an accused has been represented by a lawyer who is taking a guarantee of keeping him present in the Court punctually and without fault. The trial Court should have considered all these things at the time of considering the prayer made by the petitioner for exemption from personal attendance in the Court. This Court can do it by invoking its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code in this case keeping in view the ill-health and the symptoms indicated by the certificate of Dr. D. Mukherji and in view of the death of other co-accused. ( 6 ) THUS, the petitions are allowed. The petitioner/accused need not remain present before the trial Court on all the dates of the trial provided his lawyer attends the Court regularly, punctually and whenever called by the Court. Failure in this context would invite the possibility of forfeiture of this concession granted by this Court. ( 6 ) THUS, the petitions are allowed. The petitioner/accused need not remain present before the trial Court on all the dates of the trial provided his lawyer attends the Court regularly, punctually and whenever called by the Court. Failure in this context would invite the possibility of forfeiture of this concession granted by this Court. The trial Court may direct personal presence of the accused whenever required for the purpose of completing the trial. ( 7 ) SHRI A. H. Khan submitted that the complainant is unnecessarily required to attend the Court and the case is lingering on. The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the cases and complete them as early as possible so as to relieve the complaint also from the attendance which must have been causing disturbance in his official duties. Petition allowed. .