JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned RP. for the State. 2. Perused the order of learned Magistrate dated 23.8.1995. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused petitioner was already granted exemption by the trial court as he was to go to earn his livelihood out of India He submitted that the case has not further proceeded at all and even then the learned trial Judge ordered that the petitioner be produced on 23.8.95 while cancelling the exemption. He also submitted that there was no sufficient cause to refuse the exemption from personal attendance of the accused petitioner. He submitted that even charge has not been framed because some other accused persons absconding. 4. Learned RP has tried to support the order of the learned Magistrate. 5. I have considered the rival contentions and in my view the order of the learned Magistrate is not proper as much as the petitioner was not required for any purpose to attend the court on 23.8.95. He was granted exemption by the trial court and there was no sufficient cause to refuse the exemption as personal attendance was not required on the date when exemption application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. 6. The petition is hereby allowed and the order dated 23.8.1995 is set-aside. Exemption application stands allowed. Learned Magistrate will be free to cancel exemption when the accused petitioner is required for any purpose to attend the court before him.The petition stands allowed.Petition Disposed of as Above. *******