C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) SINCE common questions of fact and law arise in these three petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) IN all these three cases proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments act were initiated against the petitioners by the first respondent in the respective petitions, in which summons were issued to them. They, without being present on the day of first hearing, filed petitions seeking exemption from their personal attendance. Those petitions were allowed and the cases were adjourned. On that date of adjournment also petitioners were absent and they again filed petitions to condone their absence. They also field petitions seeking permission to be represented through their counsel in the respective cases. The learned Magistrate, holding that in view of Section 251 Cr. P. C. he has to furnish copies to the accused and should also examine them to find out if they plead guilty or not, after putting the substance of the accusations against them, dismissed those petitions. Those orders of dismissal are the subject matter of these petitions. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the ratio in Ramojirao v. V. V. Rajam and Dasarihouse of Publication Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Apple Credit corporation Ltd. 2 since presence of accused is not essential in a summons case, he can be represented through a counsel, who can plead guilty or not guilty on behalf of the accused, and since the Supreme Court in basavaraj R. Patil v. State of Karnataka held that the presence of the accused is not essential even at the stage of Section 313 Cr. P. C. examination, and his counsel can represent and answer those questions on his behalf, the Court below was in error in dismissing the petitions. Heard the learned counsel for first respondents (complainants ) and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. ( 4 ) IN a summons case, as per Section 205 cr. P. C. , if the Magistrate finds reasons so to do, can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused, and permit him to appear by his pleader, and can, at any stage of the 1. 1998 (1) ALT (Crl.) 130 = 1998 (1) ALD (Crl) 126. 2. Crl. P. No. 2316 of 2001 dt 31-7-2002 (A. P. ). 3. (2000) 8 SCC 740 . 1998 (1) ALT (Crl.) 130 = 1998 (1) ALD (Crl) 126. 2. Crl. P. No. 2316 of 2001 dt 31-7-2002 (A. P. ). 3. (2000) 8 SCC 740 . proceedings, at his discretion, direct the personal attendance of the accused and, if need be, enforce his attendance. In view of section 205 Cr. P. C. and also the ratio in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, power of the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused, and to grant permission to him to be represented through a counsel, cannot be doubted. Whether the Magistrate has the power to do so or not is not the point for consideration in these petitions. The point is whether an accused has a vested or an indefeasible right to insist on the Court dispensing with his personal attendance and permit him to be represented by his counsel. Section 205 and 317 Cr. P. C. vest a discretion in the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to be represented by his counsel, because the word used in those sections is "may" and not "shall". As per Section 273 cr. P. C. , evidence has to be recorded in the presence of the accused and if his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his counsel. Section 251 Cr. P. C. lays down that in a summons case if the accused appears, or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused of should be stated to him and should be asked if he pleads guilty or not guilty. Though there is nothing in Section 251 Cr. P. C. to show that such questions can be put to the counsel for accused when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in view of the precedent law the Magistrate acquired a discretion to permit the accused being represented through a counsel at the stage of section 251 Cr. P. C. examination also. In bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and apparels Ltd. , it is held that the Magistrate can, in appropriate cases, allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel and in such an event the Magistrate can record the plea of the counsel for the accused as the plea of the accused. P. C. examination also. In bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and apparels Ltd. , it is held that the Magistrate can, in appropriate cases, allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel and in such an event the Magistrate can record the plea of the counsel for the accused as the plea of the accused. But that ( 4 ) (2001) 7 SCC 401 . cushion given to accused at the discretion of the Magistrate, cannot be taken to mean that the accused has an indefeasible right to insist on the Court to permit him to be represented by a counsel even at the stage of Section 251 cr. P. C. examination. In fact in Basavaraj r. Patil case (3 supra), strongly relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners, the majority view is that at the stage of Sec. 313 cr. P. C. examination the accused, who was exempt from his personal appearance in court, can make an application to answer those questions though his counsel, by swearing to an affidavit (i) narrating the facts, to satisfy the Court, if his real difficulties to be physically present in Court, (ii) assuring that no prejudice would be caused to him in any manner, by dispensing with his personal presence during such questioning, and (iii) undertaking that he would not raise any grievance on that score at any stage of the case. The principles laid down in that decision of the accused filing an affidavit, should be applied to cases of the accused seeking exemption from personal appearance at the stage of examination under Section 251 cr. P. C. , since that Section, like Section 313 cr. P. C. , does not provide for the accused answering through a counsel. Such procedure would prevent the accused, when he is permitted to be represented by an advocate at the stage of Section 251 Cr. P. C. examination, raising a plea either at the fag end of the trial or at the stage of appeal after conviction, that he suffered a prejudice by not being personally present at the time of section 251 Cr. P. C. examination and so the trial is vitiated. In none of the petitions filed by them, petitioners explained the difficulties for their being physitally present in Court on the dates on which the cases were posted for their appearance. P. C. examination and so the trial is vitiated. In none of the petitions filed by them, petitioners explained the difficulties for their being physitally present in Court on the dates on which the cases were posted for their appearance. They have also not undertaken that they would not raise any grievance with regard to their absence, in future, for the events that may take place in the presence of their counsel. through whom they wish to be represented. Petitioners, who are aware of the ratio in Basavaraj R. Patil case (3 supra) did not even swear to an affidavit as mentioned in that decision. So, it cannot be said that the Magistrate was in error in dismissing their petitions seeking permission to be represented by an advocate. ( 5 ) ANOTHER significant thing to be noted is that the impugned orders are but interlocutory orders. So, in view of Sec. 397 (2) Cr. P. C. no revision lies against those orders. Therefore, petitioners, by filing these petitions under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , intend to achieve indirectly what the law does not permit them to achieve directly. It is well known that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done by an indirect fashion. If these petitions are ordered, it would tantamount to revising the discretionary interlocutory orders of the learned Magistrate, which is prohibited under Section 397 (2) Cr. P. C. For that reason also petitioners are not entitled to any relief in these petitions. Hence the petitions are dismissed. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, petitioners are permitted to surrender before the learned V. Metropolitan magistrate, Hyderabad in the respective c. Cs. within a period of one week from today. On such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing a bond for Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each with two sureties each in a like sum each to the satisfaction of the learned magistrate. After their surrender petitioners are at liberty to move applications seeking exemption from their personal appearance in the manner laid down in Basavaraj R. Patil case (3 supra), which shall be decided by the learned Magistrate on their merits.