Judgment 1. Petitioner No. 1 Ramesh Chandra, petitioner No. 2 Uttam Sen Gupta, petitioner No. 3 Sudhir Kumar Jain and petitioner No. 4 Abhijeet Sen have been sued by opposite party No. 2 for commission of offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code in the capacity of Publisher, Editor, Printer and Correspondent respectively of the Times of India for publishing a defamatory news item against the complainant. While issuing summons, the Trial Court had exempted petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from their personal appearance in Court in accordance with the provision of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No such exemption had been granted to petitioner No. 4 Abhijeet Sen. While extending the privilege of exemption under Section 205, Cr PC to petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the Trial Court had directed that they shall have to appear before it at the time of their examination under Section 313, Cr PC. However, when the time of their examination under Section 313, Cr PC arrived, they made an application to the Trial Court for exemption as required under Section 313, Cr PC. Their such prayer was not granted by order dated 4.7.1998 necessiting the present application under Section 482, Cr PC. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not press the application insofar as it concerns petitioner No. 4 Abhijeet Sen. Therefore, the application stands dismissed as against petitioner No. 4 Abhijeet Sen. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the previous order of the Trial Court granting them exemption under Section 205, Cr PC, petitioners 1, 2 and 3 were bound to appear in the Trial Court at the time of their examination under Section 313, Cr PC. However, he submits thatin view of the fact that in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence at all, the petitioners cannot be compelled to appear for their examination under Section 313, Cr PC. He submits that in the present case in course of trial only the complainant was put in the witness box for his examination but his cross-examination remained incomplete and in spite of large number of adjournments granted to him for appearing in the witness-box for cross-examination, he did not appear. He submits that in the present case in course of trial only the complainant was put in the witness box for his examination but his cross-examination remained incomplete and in spite of large number of adjournments granted to him for appearing in the witness-box for cross-examination, he did not appear. Therefore, whatever the complainant has stated in course of trial cannot be taken into consideration as legal evidence against the petitioners. Therefore, in the present case, absolutely there is no evidence, to explain which the petitioners can be asked to appear in person in the Trial Court. 4. Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court (a) may at any stage without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers necessary; (b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case; 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). 5. No doubt, while granting exemption under Section 205, Cr PC to the petitioners 1, 2 and 4, the Trial Court had directed that they shall appear before it for their examination under Section 313, Cr PC in view of the fact that in the present case, there is absolutely no evidence worth its name to be explained by the said petitioners, when there was a prayer by petitioners 1, 2 and 3 for their exemption from examination under Section 313, Cr PC, as required by proviso to sub-section (1) the learned Trial Court should have granted the prayer instead of rejecting it on most technical ground. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 4.7.1998 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the Trial Court to make appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of the observation made above on the prayer of the petitioners 1, 2 and 3 dispensing with their examination under Section 313(l)(b), Cr PC.