JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J.: Since both the revisional applications being CRR No. 2317 of 1997 and CRR No. 2309 of 1997 are arising out of the same order, both the applications are taken up together for hearing. 2. In CRR No. 2317 of 1997 the petitioner has challenged an order dated 4.6.97 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/632/96 rejecting the petitioner's application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. In April 1996 the Enforcement Directorate lodged a petition of complaint in the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta alleging commission of an offence punishable under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The said complaint was registered as Case No. C/632 of 1996. On receipt of such complaint the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued process for appearance of the accused person. On receipt of summons the petitioner appeared through his ld. Advocate and filed an application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer for dispensing with the personal attendance of the petitioner and to permit him to be represented at the trial by his ld. Advocate. By an order dated 4th June, 1997 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta rejected the petitioner's application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and directed him to be personally present in court on July 14, 1997. 4. Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that in connection with his various business activities, corporate and statutory duties and financial dealings the petitioner has to travel to various places both in India and abroad. Further the petitioner's presence is often required at short notices at his various jute mills to resolve problems and disputes. In such circumstances it will be really difficult for the petitioner to attend the court on each and every date. It is the further submission of Mr. Roy that the case is one based on records which are in custody of the complainant. It is the further submission of Mr. Roy that since the petitioner is not challenging his identity, his absence before the ld. Court would not prejudice the prosecution in any way. Mr. Roy Chowdhury the ld. It is the further submission of Mr. Roy that the case is one based on records which are in custody of the complainant. It is the further submission of Mr. Roy that since the petitioner is not challenging his identity, his absence before the ld. Court would not prejudice the prosecution in any way. Mr. Roy Chowdhury the ld. Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party No.2 opposes the present application and submits that the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not suffer from any illegality. Mr. Roy Chowdhury relies on a judgment reported in (1994) 2 SCC 39 . From the said judgment it appears that in a proceeding for offences under sections 376/417 and 506 IPC the High Court directed the trial court to dispense with the personal attendance of respondent/accused and to permit him to appear by his Advocate. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the reasons given by the High Court in dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused by invoking the power under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is untenable, wherein serious allegations have been made against; the accused respondents. It was directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the respondent accused should make his appearance before the trial court on all the hearing dates when the material witnesses are examined. Mr. Roy Chowdhury relies on another judgment reported in 1998 Calcutta Criminal Law Reporters (Calcutta) page 393. In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this court as follows:- "The petitioner has nothing to show that he ever appeared before the learned Magistrate and honoured the summons issued upon him and the case being a warrant procedure case, the petitioner cannot have indulgence to be represented by the learned Advocate without appearing even once and even without obtaining a bail. It is true that the petitioner being a resident of Bombay, it is difficult for him to come to Siliguri every day or within a gap of only short interval, but all these may be reconciled after his first appearance before the learned Magistrate when he can pray before the learned Trial Court that the case may be fixed after sufficient gap of time or be taken up continuously for one or two or three days as the eventuality may be, so that the petitioner can make harmony between his responsible duty and responsibility towards the Court in a case under section 420, IPC read with section 120B of the same Code, personal appearance and identification of the accused persons are actually required at times. So the petitioner cannot get an omnibus latitude for not appearing before the Court even once." 5. Mr. Roy Chowdhury cited another judgment reported in AIR 1998 SC page 696. In the said case it appears that the Enforcement Directorate under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act moved the High Court challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail to the accused person. In the said judgment it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court as follows:- "We have no doubt that the Division Bench of the High Court has gone ostensibly wrong in passing the impugned order. When we perused the files concerning the allegations against the respondent (which the Directorate had made available to us) we strongly feel that any further loss of time would further impair the effectiveness of the inquiry/or investigation into those allegations. Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations as well as largeness of the amount involved we have no doubt that the order granted by the City Sessions Judge should not remain alive. We are, therefore, constrained to stretch the arms of the residual powers of this court to deal with the said order also." "In the result we set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and we also annul the pre-arrest bail order dated 25.4.1997 passed by the City Sessions Judge. The petition filed by the appellant before the Calcutta High Court for cancellation of the bail order will stand disposed of in the above terms. Appeal is accordingly allowed." 6. The petition filed by the appellant before the Calcutta High Court for cancellation of the bail order will stand disposed of in the above terms. Appeal is accordingly allowed." 6. I have heard the learned Advocates of the respective parties, I have also gone through the impugned order dated 4.6.97 passed by the Id. Magistrate and in my considered opinion there is nothing wrong in the said order and the ld. Magistrate rightly rejected the application under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner. From the impugned order it appears that application under section 205 was rejected by the ld. Magistrate on the ground that the petitioner has violated Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to the tune of US $ 89,367.76 and huge number of documents have been recovered from the residence of the accused person. The allegation against the accused petitioner is very serious in nature and in a case like this the personal appearance of the accused petitioner cannot be dispensed with by invoking the power under section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ld. Magistrate rightly observed that if such privilege is given to the accused person in a case of this nature, people will lose their confidence in the administration of justice. 7. In have carefully gone through the impugned order as also the other connected papers which are annexed to the revisional application and I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality which warrants interference by this court. Accordingly the revisional application fails and the same is dismissed. 8. Since the application being CRR No. 2309 of 1997 is arising out of the same order dated 4th June, 1997 passed by the ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta in Case No. C/632/96 rejecting the petitioner's application under section 205 Cr. P.C., the same is also dismissed in the light of observation made hereinabove. 9. The Lower Court records may be sent down to the court below immediately. 10. Let certified copy of the order passed today if applied for be supplied to the parties expeditiously. Both the revisional applications are dismissed.