Judgment DK Sinha, J.- This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 17.9.2010, passed by Shri Pankaj Kumar, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi by which a petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in R.C. Case No.14(S)/08-AHD-R was rejected and now the case is pending before the successor court of Shri Radha Mohan Tiwary, Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. 2. Prosecution story in short was that the case was• instituted by the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Main Branch, Ranchi by submitting a written report on 28.11 .2008, addressed to the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.), Ranchi, alleging inter alia that a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.75,00,000/- and a term loan of Rs.25,00,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank of Baroda to M/s Neelam Spices, Ranchi. It was alleged that sum of Rs.7 4,92,805/-and Rs. 16,59,716/- respectively on the different heads stated above were still outstanding against M/s Neelam Spices, Ranchi alongwith interest admissible thereon. S/Shri Santosh Sahu and Satish Kumar Sahu were the partners of M/s Neelam Spices, Ranchi and the loan amount was sanctioned as against the equitable mortgage of landed property belonging to the partners aforesaid, whereas guarantors were S/Shri Budhram Sahu, Jairam Sahu and Girdhariram Sahu, to which sale deeds were presented to the Bank of Baroda as collateral security with the application of the loan. It was alleged that partner of the firm Shri Santosh Sahu had deposited deeds of two land in respect of two chunks of homestead land i.e. being Plot No. 1937 to 1940, situated at Village-Simalia, measuring 83 decimals, whereas the other deed disclosed land measuring .25 acres at Village-Jhiri. The deeds of land submitted by the guarantors disclosed 2.81 acres of land situated at Village-Adchori, Ratu, Ranchi. It was stated that when the loan became sticky, the authorities of the Bank verified the landed properties and in the process of verification, it transpired that the landed properties shown by the loanee or the guarantors did not belong to them. It was detected that 81 acres of land were manipulated to be read as 2.81 acres and in that manner, Bank was cheated inasmuch as it was induced to sanction loan in favour of the borrowers/loanees on the basis of forged securities, as such, on the written complaint, R.C. Case No. 14(S)/08-AHD-R was registered on 17.12.2008 against the borrowers/guarantors viz. It was detected that 81 acres of land were manipulated to be read as 2.81 acres and in that manner, Bank was cheated inasmuch as it was induced to sanction loan in favour of the borrowers/loanees on the basis of forged securities, as such, on the written complaint, R.C. Case No. 14(S)/08-AHD-R was registered on 17.12.2008 against the borrowers/guarantors viz. Santosh Sahu, Satish Kumar Sahu, Budhram Sahu, Jairam Sahu and Girdhariram Sahu for the alleged offence under Sections 120B/420/467 /468/471 of the Indian Penal Code and litigation was initiated. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Sinha submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR but at the relevant time he was posted as Manager, Credit in the Bank of Baroda. He was not assigned the duty to examine the genuineness of the documents produced by the borrowers. The normal procedure was that before recommending the loan by the Branch Manager, pre-sanction inspection report for new SSI Unit used to be prepared, to which inspection used to be done by the competent officers of the Bank. Papers and relevant documents, as per Banking Rules were examined by the Legal Section of the Bank and only thereafter, the loan was sanctioned after receiving the legal opinion from the empanelled lawyer and for such reason, the informant did not name the petitioner as an accused in his written report being presented before the Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.). Now the petitioner is posted in Mumbai as Manager Credit in the Bank of Baroda. Upon receipt of the summons from the Special Court, C.B.I., he applied for being represented in this case by his Advocate under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected by the impugned order. It was not practically possible for the petitioner against whom there was no allegation to attend the Special Court, C.B.I. generally on each and every date and therefore, he craved the indulgence of the Special Court by filing a petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected. 4. Mr. It was not practically possible for the petitioner against whom there was no allegation to attend the Special Court, C.B.I. generally on each and every date and therefore, he craved the indulgence of the Special Court by filing a petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was rejected. 4. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel further submitted that there was no material at all against the petitioner, however, since the summons was issued against him, he requested for dispensation his personal attendance in the Court and permission to be represented through his lawyer on each and every date but the same was refused only on the ground that allegation was serious in nature and his petition was not fit for consideration. 5. Heard Mr. Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I., who submitted that transaction was made by granting loan to the named accused during the' period of posting of the petitioner in the concerned Branch of the Bank of Baroda. 6. A Bench of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Karuna Jha vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in 2005(1) East. Cr.C.176(Jhr.) held as under: "In the case of Ram Harsh Das vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1998(1) All PLR 495, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court while appreciating the provision observed that the Magistrate can exercise powers .conferred upon him under Section 205 Cr.P.C. even in warrant cases, provided he had issued summons instead of issuing the warrant. The Court further observed that in a case where a warrant has been issued at the first instance, the power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. The court also held that there is no hard and fast rule which can be laid down for deciding the question of grant or refusal of prayer for dispensing the personal attendance." 7. Under the facts and circumstances, the criminal revision filed by the petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is dispensed with his personal attendance with the direction that he would appear through his Lawyer/Lawyers on giving undertaking to the satisfaction of the concerned Court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the said case and that his counsel/counsels would remain present in the Court and that there would not be objection on his part in recording of prosecution evidence in his absence. It is observed that at any time in course of trial, if the Trial Court finds that the presence of the petitioner is required then for the reasons to be recorded, the Court may direct the accused-petitioner to remain physically in attendance and the petitioner in such case would not avoid to attend the Court. 8. This criminal revision is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.