JUDGMENT: 1. THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated July 11,2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th court, Calcutta, in connection with Case No. C-87 of 2000 thereby directing the petitioners above named who have been arrayed in a Case No. C-87/2000 before the said Court on the basis of a petition of complaint filed on behalf of the opposite party No. l to answer accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 138/114 of the Negotiable Instruments act to first appear in Court before their prayer for personal exemption can be considered. 2. THE sole point of determination in this application is efficacy of he order of July 11, 2000 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioners to first appear and thereafter their prayer for personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be considered in terms of a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. K. Jain v. Union of India (2001) 1 SCC 709 The learned senior Counsel appearing in support of this application has submitted that the petitioners are busy, corporate executives and it would be difficult for them to attend the proceeding in the Court below as they were pre-occupied with their avocation. It has further been submitted that the petitioners who are the erstwhile directors of the company having since relinquished their membership from the Board, were in no way connected with the offence alleged against them and apart from the fact that they were not members of the Board at the relevant point of time when the infraction in respect of Section 138 of the said. Act was committed, it would be in the fitness of things that the liberty to personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be granted in their favour as there is no question of personal identification involved. 3. THE leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 and 3 on instruction submits that he has no objection if the petitioners are directed to be represented under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure during the trial; but he only prays for expeditious conclusion of the said proceeding. 4. 3. THE leaned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 and 3 on instruction submits that he has no objection if the petitioners are directed to be represented under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure during the trial; but he only prays for expeditious conclusion of the said proceeding. 4. LET me now consider the submission of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties in the light of the legal position as enunciated in Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure barging out of the instructional concession of the opposite parties. It appears from a plain reading of the order impugned passed by the learned Magistrate that the accused-petitioners' prayer for personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was kept in abeyance consequent to their appearance before the Court in view of the decision of V. K. Jain (supra) and the learned Magistrate directed, "in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000) 1 SCC 709 the petition under Section 205 of the Cr. P. C. can be considered after appearance of the accused-persons in Court. As such the accused persons are directed to appear before the Court for consideration of the petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. " I find that the learned magistrate has not committed any illegality by passing the impugned order as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. K. Jain (supra) has held that, "we permit the petitioner to move the Court concerned (before which the prosecution is pending in any of the cases) for exempting him from personal appearance. This can be done only after making the first appearance in the court concerned. If any such application is filed by the petitioner, we direct the Court concerned to exempt him from personal appearance on the following conditions: (1) A Counsel on his behalf would be present in the, particular Court on days when his case is taken up; (2) He will not dispute his identity and (3) He will be present in Court when such presence is imperatively needed. " 5. IN view of the ratio of the said decision in that particular case, the learned Magistrate has rightly directed the petitioner to first appear and thereafter such prayer would be taken up for consideration. " 5. IN view of the ratio of the said decision in that particular case, the learned Magistrate has rightly directed the petitioner to first appear and thereafter such prayer would be taken up for consideration. In my view, the said order cannot be found fault with. As on a perusal of the said decision of V. K. Jain (supra) it appears that the Apex Court has clearly laid down, although in that particular fact situation of the case, that the accused must appear first and then prayer for personal exemption should be made, the learned Magistrate has proceeded rightly and passed the impugned direction which in any manner cannot be called into question. 6. LIBERTY under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not for mere asking. The language of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure casts a discretion upon the learned Magistrate. The word 'may' in Sub-section (1) of Section 205 firstly makes it discretionary on the leaned magistrate 'if he sees reason so to do'; in other words, not only it is the absolute discretion of the learned Magistrate in an exercise of the said power or reasons which may appeal to the learned Magistrate. As the sweep of sub-section (1) of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure casts a great discretion on the learned Magistrate to either proceed in that direction or refused to entertain such prayer it is obviously open to the test of justifiability by a Superior Court. The provisions of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is the prototype legatee of the old Code of 1898 without any change. No doubt true that the Legislatures in their wisdom had incorporated this provision to enable persons suffering under impelling circumstances to be granted the liberty under Section 205 of the Code of criminal Procedure from physically presenting themselves in the day-to-day hearing of the trial but allowed to be represented through their learned counsels. In our adversarial system of law it provides several safeguards in favour of the accused. However, any such safeguard cannot be construed to ignore the MAJESTIC OMNIPOTENCE of law by choosing to stary away from the due process of law in a blanket fashion and participate in a trial in abstention as a matter of rule this is not the intention of the Legislature. However, any such safeguard cannot be construed to ignore the MAJESTIC OMNIPOTENCE of law by choosing to stary away from the due process of law in a blanket fashion and participate in a trial in abstention as a matter of rule this is not the intention of the Legislature. The petitioners particularly petitioner No. 2 it appears never presented himself before the Court but straightaway approached this Court on being faced with the Order of the learned Magistrate to appear before the said Court before his prayer for personal exemption under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. SECTION 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be the fashionable recluse of the high and mighty who having crossed the wrong side of law shy away from its righteous path on the basis of a legal attornment as a matter of fact and as if it is a perquisite of the legal process. This is not so. 8. IN the instant case, it appears that from a consortium of several accused persons some have chosen to appear and some have not. In the latter category falls these petitioners who have moved this Court for claiming such privilege bye-passing the Trial Court seeking to distinguish the ratio of the decision of V. K. Jain (supra) on the plea, firstly that the petitioners were busy executives and secondly, that the said decision was not a ratio decendendi, only applicable in the fact situation of the said case. This Court finds that the decision of the Supreme Court has been followed by the learned Trial court and had directed the petitioners to appear before the Court and thereafter the prayer for personal exemption would be considered, which in my view, does not call for any interference as the learned Trial Court has already passed directions to that effect. The learned Magistrate, in my view, has correctly proceeded. The learned Magistrate, in my view, has correctly proceeded. Not only the decision of V. K. Jain (supra) which has been correctly considered by the learned Magistrate and the impugned Order was passed but another very recent Supreme Court judgment, which I am very much tempted to refer u. P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd. and Ors., (2000)3 SCC 745 stipulates in the penultimate paragraph- "if any of the accused applies for dispensing with his personal presence in the Court, after making the first appearance, the trial Court can exempt him from continuing to appear in the Court by imposing any condition which the Court deems fir such conditions can include, inter alia, that a Counsel on his behalf would be present when the case is called, that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that he would be present in Court when such presence is imperatively needed. "the bottom line of the entire debate in my humble opinion boils down to the proposition initial appearance has to be made before such liberty can be granted. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the decision of V. K. Jain (supra) cannot be used as a general principle of law enunicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, does not merit any consideration in the light of the discussions held hereinabove. 9. IN the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court no interference is called for and accordingly, the Revisional Application bearing no merit, is dismissed. The interim order of stay granted by this Court on 30. 5. 2000 is vacated and the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the trial with utmost dispatch. 10. PRAYER for stay of operation of this order is considered and refused. Application allowed.