Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 23.4.1994 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh in Criminal Case No. 547/92 State vs. Mahendra Kumar and Ors. (3). By the above mentioned order the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the accused persons to remain present in Court for hearing the charges which were to be framed against them and for recording their plea. (4) This petition has been filed against the above mentioned order on the ground that the charges could have been read over and explained to the counsel of the accused and in place of plea of the accused plea given by the counsel of the accused may be recorded and that it is not necessary to compell the attendance of the accused persons for framing of the charges against them and for recording their plea. (5). After carefully considering the reasons given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in his order for directing the attendance of the accused persons before the Court and taking into consideration the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, I am of the opinion that the charges are required to be framed against the accused persons. The charges should, therefore, be read over and explained to the accused person and their plea be recorded by the Court. The pre- sence of the accused persons at the time of framing of the charges against them is, therefore, essential. (6). The intention of the legislature as to what is to be done in those cases where the attendance of the accused is exempted and he is allowed to appear through his counsel, in indicated by the proviso given below Section 313 (1) (c) Cr.P.C. The proviso reads : ``Provided that in a summons-case, where the Court has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). (7). Section 313 (1) Cr.P.C. makes it clear that where legislature intends that the accused whose personal attendance has been dispensed with and he should not be compelled to appear, the proper course would be to dispense with the examination of the accused under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. rather than examine the counsel for the accused in place of the accused. It may be noted that this proviso is for summons cases only. (8). It is, therefore, very clear that if an accused person is permitted to be represented by his counsel and his personal attendance is dispensed with under Section 205 Cr.P.C., the proper course would be to direct the accused to remain present in the Court for the purpose of framing of the charge against him or recording his plea or for examining him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. unless the law permits the Court to dispense with his examination or to dispense with the framing of the charge. (9). My attention has not been drawn to any provision of Criminal Procedure Code which may said to authorise a criminal Court in warrant cases to dispense with necessity of framing of charge and recording the plea of the accused. (10). For reasons mentioned above the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The petition has no force it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.