Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2. 2. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 12.10.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Patna in Complaint Case No. 2134(C) of 2005 whereby and whereunder the prayer made by the petitioner for dispensing with the personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short as the Code), has been rejected. 3. The petitioner has been made an accused alongwith others in Complaint Case No. 2134(C)/05. According to complainant the accused had assigned work of advertisement to him during the period July, 2002 to January, 2008. The complainant accordingly performed the work in good faith and on this count accused became liable to pay Rs. 9,62,558/- (net after allowing discount) to the complainant for the work undertaken and performed by him. The complainant accordingly submitted the bills and after several reminders only a sum of Rs. 8,10,235/- was paid by the accused persons but the remaining amount of Rs. 1,52,223/- is still due against them. 4. It appears that the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation and during inquiry under Section 202 of the Code two witnesses were examined and the learned Magistrate after being satisfied that there was sufficient materials to proceed against the accused persons under Sections 403, 418 and 120B IPC ordered to issue summons against them on 2.6.2006. 5. It further appears from the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner that on 28.8.2006 summons were issued against accused persons including the petitioner. Service report of the same was not received. Thereafter on 7.10.2006 the court below ordered to issue bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner and the same was issued on 19.5.2007. Again without getting service report of bailable warrant of arrest the court on 4.8.2007 directed the office to issue warrant nonbailable against the petitioner which was issued on 12.10.2007. According to the learned counsel again without getting service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest the court ordered to issue process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code which was issued by the court on 15.12.2007 after the stay order passed by this Court on 13.12.2007. 6. Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Deputy General Manager (Sales), Hindustan Motors Ltd., Koikata. 6. Mr. Gopal Govind Mishra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is Deputy General Manager (Sales), Hindustan Motors Ltd., Koikata. He used to remain busy in the affairs of the Company. He has to move from one place to another in the territory of India in connection with the business affairs of the Company. He therefore, submitted that it is difficult for the petitioner to attend the court on each and every date fixed in the case and thus the learned Magistrate ought to have accepted the prayer of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Subhas Chandra Mishra appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2, however, opposed the prayer and submitted that in view of nature of allegation the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 8. Mr. Jaiswal, Senior Advocate and APP appearing on behalf of the State also opposed the prayer. 9. It is admitted position that the petitioner is an employee of Hindustan Motors Ltd., Koikata. According to the petitioner at present he is Deputy General Manager (Sales) in the Company. He has to move from one place to another in connection with business of the Company. From the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner it appears that never any process was served upon the petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner has been made accused in the case only because he is an employee of Hindustan Motors Ltd. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the petitioner is facing this criminal prosecution on account of association with Hindustan Motors Ltd. Moreover the petitioner appears to be living at Kolkata which is far away from Patna. 11. In the circumstances, this application is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.10.2007 is hereby set aside and the court below is directed to allow the benefit of Section 205 of the Code to the petitioner. However, for the said purpose the court below will be at liberty to further direct the petitioner to give undertaking to the satisfaction of the court that he would not dispute his identity and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in court on the date fixed and that he has no objection in taking of evidence in his absence.