JUDGMENT 1. - Notice was given to the learned P.P. and the parties were heard. 2. The applicant was one of the Directors of M/s Amfort Agro Finance Company Ltd. a finance company. On a petition filed by Keshar Singh, one of the creditor of the company, the said company went in liquidation under order of the Company Judge dated 30.1.97 made in S.B. Company Petition No. 1/95. The business of the said company, as conducted by the present applicant, gave rise to as many as 200 criminal cases against him. After investigation, the police is stated to have submitted the reports under Section 173 Cr.RC. against the applicant in such cases. Such cases are reported to be pending in the Court of Spl. Magistrate appointed for the purpose. 3. The applicant moved an application for exemption from personal attendance in those cases on all dates of hearing. His case was that in order to help the official liquidator in the process of liquidation of the company and realisation of the money of the creditors from the company, all the details of the assets and liabilities of the company as also particulars of the debtors of the company were required to be submitted by him as per provisions of Section 454 of the Company Act 1956. In that respect the official liquidator is reported to have been pressing hard upon the applicant to submit the relevant details and statements so that winding up proceedings may be carried-on as per provisions of Company law. His personal appearance before official liquidator as also before the Company Judge in the High Court may be necessary in order to complete the winding up process of the company failing which the applicant may be held personally liable besides delaying winding up proceedings causing damage to Company's property. 4. The contention of the applicant is that since he is duly represented through a lawyer in the cases pending before the criminal courts and that no question of test identification was also involved in such cases, it would be in the fitness of the things if the personal attendance of the applicant at the hearing of the cases be exempted through his lawyer. It was further submitted that as and when the personal attendance of the applicant would be essentially and necessarily required by the trial court for any material purpose, he would put in appearance in person in such Court. 5. Since the applicant is duly represented through a counsel in the cases pending on the file of the criminal court and such cases may be proceeded in the absence of the applicant, without causing prejudice to either of the parties to the cases and the personal attendance of the applicant may be required by the official liquidator to complete the finding up proceedings of the company, it is desirable and also in the interest of speedy trial of criminal cases that personal attendance be exempted through his counsel. 6. In view of the above, the order made by the learned trial court dated 12.7.99 is hereby modified and the learned trial court is directed to grant exemption to the applicant from personal attendance through his counsel. The applicant is directed to appear in person before the said court at the time of framing of the charges and at the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. The application is disposed of in the manner stated above. *******