ORDER: The petitioner is the same in all the three revisions and he is the accused in three difference calendar cases pending on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. That was a private complaint taken on file for an offence under Sec.420, I.P.C. at the instance of the respondent. The petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each of the calendar cases seeking permission for being represented by a counsel. The learned trial Magistrate dismissed those petitions on merits. Hence, the present revisions. 2. Inasmuch as the question namely, whether the appearance of the petitioner should be dispensed with and he should be represented by a counsel or not, is a matter between the Court and the party seeking such relief, I am inclined to dispose of the revisions at the admission stage itself. 3. Perused the affidavit filed before the lower Court in support of the petitions filed under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It shows that the petitioner is travelling extensively not only in India but also abroad on account of his business connection and therefore his appearance be dispensed with and he be represented by a counsel. There is also an undertaking in the petitioners that he will appear before the Court concerned as and when the need arises. In my opinion the travel of the petitioner in connection with his business is definitely a valid ground that could be taken into account to dispense with his personal appearance and to be represented by a counsel. 4. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to allow all these revisions by setting aside the order under challenge in each of the revisions. Therefore, the petition filed under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in each calendar case before the lower Court would stand ordered as prayed for. Consequently, the connected Crl.M.Ps. are also closed.