Judgment V.N.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the C. B. I. 2. Petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 28-7-2005 where under his petition u/s. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been rejected on the ground that warrant of arrest for securing his attendance has already been issued. 3. Petitioner was a Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department and retired on 31-12-1998 and at the relevant time was posted at Siwan and is said to be involved in the Bitumen Scam and has been made accused in both the charge sheets dated 19-1-2005, Annexures-A and A/1 submitted in R. C. 21(A)/97, appertaining to Special Case No. 8/97 for the offences under Secs. 420 and 406 and other allied Section of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act as Accused Nos. 6, 5 and his status has been indicated in the two charge-sheets as one who has retired from Government Service but has not been arrested. 4. It. appears, after submission of the aforesaid charge-sheet dated 19-1-2005, cognizance was taken under order dated 19-1-2005 and summons WAS directed to be issued to the petitioner and other accused persons directing them to appear in the Court below. In compliance of the said order, summons was issued fixing 15-6-2005 as the date of appearance. It further appears from the order sheet dated 15-6-2005 that the summons could not be served on the petitioner on or before 15-6-2005 and the date of his appearance was extended to 27-7-2005, When the matter was taken up by the Court below on 27-7-2005, petitioner did not appear in spite of service of summons, as it appears from the order sheet of the said date and, accordingly, that Court below is sued non-ballable warrant of arrest for securing his appearance. Soon thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner u/s. 205 of the Code along with Vakalatnama, which was not passed and accordingly taken on re-cord by the Court below after indicating in the order sheet that the application was filed later on, and was not pressed and should be put up whenever moved. Soon thereafter, an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner u/s. 205 of the Code along with Vakalatnama, which was not passed and accordingly taken on re-cord by the Court below after indicating in the order sheet that the application was filed later on, and was not pressed and should be put up whenever moved. On 28-7-2005 the said application was moved, considered and rejected under the impugned order dated 28-7-2005 on the ground that warrant of arrest having already been issued, there was no occasion for the Court below to entertain the application under Section 205 of the Code. 5. Petitioner has filed this application questioning the said order on the ground that he being a retired person with effect from 31-12-1998 and suffering from various diseases, his appearance in the Bitumen Scam case should be dispensed with. 6. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V/s. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. reported in - and the three cases of this Court, namely, 2002 (4) Pat LJR 95, 1990 BBCJ 685 and AIR 1948 Patna 418 to submit that when the Magistrate issued summons and the petitioner appeared in response to the said summons and is suffering from various disease as also he is old man then discretion under Sec. 205 of the Code should be exercised in his favour. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the C.B.I., with reference to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Bhaskar Industries Ltd. V/s. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. (2001 Cri LJ 4250) (supra), paragraph 19 and In the case of Ajit Dutt V/s. The State of Bihar reported in 1998 (1) Pat LJR 502, paragraph 38, has submitted that in a serious case like Bitumen Scam case, discretion u/s. 205 of the Code should be seldom exercised In favour of the accused persons and In the present case when the petitioner did not appear in response to the summons and the warrant of arrest having already been issued, discretion u/s. 205 of the Code should not be exercised in his favour, in support of this submission, learned Counsel for the C.B.I, has also relied on the orders of this Court dated 28-1-2002, passed in Cr, Misc. No. 2727 of 2002, Ganpati Ranmath V/s. The State of Bihar and Anr., who was the General Manager in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Eastern Zone, Calcutta and had applied for grant of leave from appearance In Bitumen Scam eases, which was rejected and this Court never directed the Magistrate to exercise discretion u/s. 205 of the Code in favour of an accused involved in scam cases. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the order dated 27-7-2005, I am satisfied that the petitioner did not appear in response to the summons and when he did not respond to the summons, the Court below was well within its jurisdiction to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest for securing his appearance and once the non-bailable warrant of arrest is issued, the Court below is within its jurisdiction not to dispense with the appearance of the petitioner u/s. 205 of the Code. The Court below has chosen not to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner and this Court, while exercising inherent powers u/s. 482 of the Code, should not regulate and guide the exercise of discretion vested in the Court below. There does not appear to be any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, rejected.