Judgment 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 11.3.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ara in Complaint Case No. 1350C of 2003, whereby the prayer made by the petitioner for dispensing with the personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been rejected. 2. According to the complainant himself, petitioner is an employee of the Reliance Infocom Limited and posted as Circle Maintenance Manager at Patna. On the basis of a complaint filed by opposite party No. 2, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner filed application for dispensing with his attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. Dr. Ravi Ranjan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of the nature of work to be performed by the petitioner the learned Magistrate ought to have accepted the prayer of the petitioner. 4. Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, however, submits that the nature of allegation against the petitioner is such that the learned Magistrate rightly rejected his prayer. 5. Having appreciated the rival submission, I find substance in the submission of Dr. Ravi Ranjan. 6. Petitioner undisputedly is an employee of the Reliance Infocom Limited and as a Circle Maintenance Manager he had to move from one place to another. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner. 7. In the result, the application is allowed. Impugned order is set-aside and the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. However, this will not preclude the learned Magistrate in directing the petitioner for appearance on such dates as he deems necessary.