ORDER I. Mahanty, J. - This is an application u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to challenge the Order Dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore in I.C.C. No. 221 of 2008 rejecting the application of the Petitioner filed u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure. for dispensing with the personal attendance of the Petitioner. 2. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore while taking note of the fact that the offence u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is bailable in nature and placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendering in the case of M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ud. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2001) 21 OCR (SC) 452, in coming to a conclusion noted that he did not find any factual justification to permit the Petitioner to be represented u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure. at the present stage of the trial. 3. On perusal of the decision relied upon by the Trial Court, I am of the considered view that he has misapplied and misconstrued the aforesaid judgment since in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a Counsel and the Magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his Counsel makes such a plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a Counsel in that case) even for proceeding with further the steps in the case. The Hon'ble Apex Court has noted that one precaution which the Court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a Counsel on his behalf would be present in Court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. 4. 4. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the facts of the present case, I am of the view that there is no reason as to why the application filed by the Petitioner u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure. ought not to be allowed subject to, of course, filing of an undertaking as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court hereinabove. In order to avoid delay in trial of the case, the present petition is allowed and the Order Dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Learned S.D.J.M., Balasore is set aside. Learned S.D.J.M. is directed to act in terms of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court providing for an undertaking and dispose of the petition filed by the Petitioner u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure. accordingly. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed