S. K. Agarwal ( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is dorected againt order 28. th June 20o1 aseed by Sh. A. K. Sarpal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 205 Cr. P. C. seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial. ( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short n. I. Act") against the petitioner alleging that petitioner had issued a; cheque for a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 drawn on UCO Bank, Noida ( UP ) in his favour. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks "refer to drawer due to funds not being sufficient in the account of the petitioner. The petitioner did not make the payment of the cheque amount even after the legal notice. By order dated 18/09/1995, trial, court took cognizance and summons were issued for appearance of the petitioner to face the trial. In compliance of the summons, petitioner appeared before the trial court and was admitted on bail. Thereafter, she was served with a notice under Section 251 Cr. P. C. to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was then adjourned for evidence of the complainant. The petitioner moved an application seeking exemption from personal appearance during the trial. The trial court vide order dated 30th may, 2000 dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the said order petitioner moved a petition under Section 482 cr. P. C. before this Court seeking directions to the trial court to dispense with appearance of the petitioner in the said case. Hon ble Mr. Justice R. C. Chopra vide order dated 18/04/2001, passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 4668/2000 directed the petitioner to move a fresh application for exemption before the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the application in accordance with law laid down in Geeta Sethi v. State Crl. M. (M ). . No. 4685/2000 decided on 12/03/2000 and S. Nihal Singh and Others v. Arjan Das. 1985 Crl. M. (M) No. 4668/2000 directed the petitioner to move a fresh application for exemption before the trial court and directed the trial court to decide the application in accordance with law laid down in Geeta Sethi v. State Crl. M. (M ). . No. 4685/2000 decided on 12/03/2000 and S. Nihal Singh and Others v. Arjan Das. 1985 Crl. L. J. 467 Thereafter, the petitioner again moved an application for exemption stating therein that she is a permanent resident of bombay; she has a small baby to take care of she has to face difficulties in travelling from Bombay to Delhi on all dates of hearing; the question of identity is not involved in the trial and she undertook to appear before the court as and when required. The trial court vide impugned order dated 28/06/2001 dismissed the application observing: "this fact is not disputed that accused is a rich lady and a wife of film star. No proof has been placed on record that she has a small child or what is the age of that child. Even if for the sake of arguments it is presumed that she has a small child to lookafter but it ts not alleged in her application that there is no other person including family member or: servant to lookafter the child in her absence. Though admittedly she is a resident of Bombay but now a days Bombay is well connected with the Delhi by fast trains and airways. No problem would arise for the accused to come to Delhi to attend the date of hearing as it is not alleged that she had financial problem, the Delhi High Court in Geeta Sethi s case granted exemption to the lady which was old and sick. But here in the present case the accused is not an old lady or suf fering from any ailment. " ( 3 ) THE above order is under challenge. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have been taken through the record Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 very fairly conceded that grant or refusal of exemption is within the discretion of the court. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, petitioner is a permanent resident of Bombay. She has been summoned as an accussed for the offence under Section 138 of N. I. Act which does not involve any moral turpitude. It is a summons trial case. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, petitioner is a permanent resident of Bombay. She has been summoned as an accussed for the offence under Section 138 of N. I. Act which does not involve any moral turpitude. It is a summons trial case. Section 205 Cr. P. C. constitution an exception to the general rule that the accused must be present in person in the course of enquiry for trial during the criminal casse. This! Section empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused. Power under this Section can be exercised not only when the summons are issued against the accused but also at the initial stage. Sub-section (1) of Section 205 cr. P. C. undoubtedly gives very wide discretion to the magistrate issuing summons to decide whether the accused should appear in person or should be permitted to appear through a lawyer butt such discretion must be exercised judiciously. It is a settled proposition of law that wherever discretion is vested with court it has to be exercised judiciously keeping in view the attending circumstances. For the purpose of granting exemption from personal appearance, the court is only to see whether it would prejudice the progress of the trial. There must be cogent and convincing reasons for rejection of such application. Exemption should not be refused if accused is likely to be put to avoidable hardship and harassment. The power to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused should be liberally exercised except in the criminal cases of serious nature involving moral turpitude or where the offence is punishable with a sentence of long imprisonment. The court should examine the matter and see whether any useful purpose is likely to be served by requiring the personal appearance of the accused. Personal attendance of the accused to receive notice regarding the substance of accusation and the plea of guilty thereto or not can also be recorded in suitable cases in absentia as has been held by Apex Court as well as by this Court in several authoritative pronouncements. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court in the recent decision passed in M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhiwani denim and Apparels Ltd. and Ors. 2001 (2) JCC ( SC ) 127 considered the Sectioni 317 Cr. P. C.- which provides enquiries and trial being held in the absence of the accused in certain cases. while considering Section 20. ( 5 ) THE Apex Court in the recent decision passed in M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Bhiwani denim and Apparels Ltd. and Ors. 2001 (2) JCC ( SC ) 127 considered the Sectioni 317 Cr. P. C.- which provides enquiries and trial being held in the absence of the accused in certain cases. while considering Section 20. 5 cr. P. C. which empowers the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused it was held:- "the position, therefore, bogs down to this: It is within the powers of a magistrate and in his Judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him, and the comparative advantage would be less such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or, carries on business or on account of any. physical or other good reasons the magistrate feels that dispensing with the peraonal attendance the accuaed would only be in the interests of Justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. (emphasis supplied) ( 6 ) TO conclude, while considering the exemption application, the. question which the court addresses itself is whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring the personal attendance of the accused or the progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of his absence. In this case as noticed above, trial court declined the exemption application only on the ground that petitioner is a rich lady, wife of filmstar and can afford to travel from Bombay to Delhi on each and every date of hearing. The court failed to consider that it is bound to cause lot of hardships if she ie required to come all the way from Bombay to Delhi on each and every date or hearing. The progress of trial is not likely to be hampered when the petitioner was represented by a lawyer who has full instructions; whose power of attorney is on record; who has undertaken not to seek adjournment because of absence of the petitioner. The identity of petitioner is not disputed. The progress of trial is not likely to be hampered when the petitioner was represented by a lawyer who has full instructions; whose power of attorney is on record; who has undertaken not to seek adjournment because of absence of the petitioner. The identity of petitioner is not disputed. She has undertaken to appear as and when required. Undoubtedly, a Magistrate granting exemption from; personal attendance is also empowered under sub-Sectian (2) of Section 205 Cr. P. C. to withdraw such privilege. In my conisidered view, the reasoning adopted by the trial court while dismissing exemption application of petitioner is at all not sustainable in law. ( 7 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Exemption from personal appearance is granted to the petitioner during the course of trial except for the special reason recorded in writing trial court may order for appearance of the petitioner for any particular date/dates.