Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) SINCE both the cases have been heard together as common points are involved in these cases and as such are being disposed of by this common order. These applications have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated August 4, 2001 passed in Case No. F. A. 2/2000 and F. A. 3/2000 by the Judicial magistrate, Bokaro at Chas, whereby and whereunder the learned Court below rejected the applications of the petitioner filed under section 205 Cr. PC. ( 2 ) THE opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial magistrate, Chas at Bokaro alleging that after closure of the factory of BASF India Ltd. in course of dismantling without making proper safety arrangement, Gas cutting was undertaken in the premises which was an offence under Section 37 (4) Rule 95, Schedule 13, 52 (b) violating the provisions of Section 92 of the Factories Act. It has been further alleged that BASF India Ltd. Industrial Area, Balidih, bokaro, production was stopped by the management from October 9, 1997. According to the records available, Sri M. Balasubramaniam Director of the Management was the occupier and Sri S. Seshan was the manager. On October 9, 1997 the occupier/management had given intimation of the closure of the factory and had surrendered their licence. Thereafter, it appeared that the factory had been closed and no production was undertaken. On November 3, 1999 in the A. C. Plant, there was an explosion and fire and it was learnt and also on enquiry, it was found that one of the workers died due to the injuries sustained in the accident on November 12, 1999 in course of treatment. The factory was closed since 1997 and the structure shed, pipeline and other properties of BASF India ltd. were sold to different parties and the same had been dismantled. Accordingly, the complaint was filed and the learned Court below after being satisfied took cognizance for the offence. ( 3 ) A petition on behalf of the petitioner was filed under Section 205 Cr. PC praying to dispense with the appearance on the ground that the petitioner has been residing at mumbai and he has also retired since April 2, 1999 and he is an old person. ( 3 ) A petition on behalf of the petitioner was filed under Section 205 Cr. PC praying to dispense with the appearance on the ground that the petitioner has been residing at mumbai and he has also retired since April 2, 1999 and he is an old person. But the learned Court below rejected the prayer by the impugned order hence these applications. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that the case is of summons triable as well as the petitioner has already retired as back as on April 1, 1999 and he is also an old person and as such his appearance may be dispensed with and for which there will be no delay in disposal of the case. It is further argued that actually the petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly responsible for the said occurrence as well as on October 9, 1997 intimation was already made about closure of the factory and licence was also surrendered. It is further submitted that the Court below passed the order impugned without appreciating the material fact. The learned counsel for the petitioner also undertakes that the petitioner would appear in the Court below, if and when directed by the Court below for his appearance. In a case of minor and trivial nature, the application under Section 205 Cr. PC for exemption in appearance on each and every date ought to be allowed and the petition should be liberally dealt with. It is true that such privilege may not be granted at the cost of delay in disposal of the case even if it is summon triable case. ( 5 ) HAVING regard to the above facts and circumstances, I find that the learned Court below committed error in rejecting the applications of the petitioner without giving any cogent reason as the petitioner being an old person and he has already retired and also residing in Mumbai. ( 6 ) IN the above facts and circumstances, i find merit in this application for allowing the petitioner to dispense with his appearance in both the cases with a condition that the petitioner shall appear in the Court below, if and when required by the Court. If the petitioner fails to appear, the trial Court shall take coercive steps for his appearance. If the petitioner fails to appear, the trial Court shall take coercive steps for his appearance. ( 7 ) WITH the aforesaid observation, both the applications are allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. --- *** --- .