A.K. Goswami, J;- Heard Mrs. M. Hazarika, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.S. Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Assam. 2. The present revision application is di­rected against an order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Kamrup, Guwahati in GR Case No. 622/11 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 Cr.P.C. praying for exemption of his appearance was rejected. A perusal of the order dated 17.08.2011 would indicate that the petitioner had con­tended that identification of the petitioner for the conduct of trail is not at all required. It was also stated that he is a senior citizen, aged about 73 years, and is suffering from old age ailments and he will have to face consider­able hardship in travelling to Guwahati from Shillong. The learned trial Court took a view that the present petitioner could not show sufficient reason for allowing his prayer for his representation under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 3. Mrs. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel has drawn my attention to the order dated 13.06.2011 of the learned trial Court to sub­mit that personal attendance in respect of three of the Directors of Vinay Cements Limited had been dispensed with by invoking the pro­visions of Section205 Cr.P.C. Mrs. Hazarika has also submitted that the petitioner will not raise any question regarding identification. It has also been brought to my notice that the trial Court recorded a finding that the pesonal attendance of the said three persons would serve no useful purpose and there is no ques­tion of any identification of any particular ac­cused. The said three persons are, however, from Kolkata and Gurgaon. 4. Mrs. Hazarika, learned Sr. counsel has also drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court in the case of Roitong Singpho -Vs. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal (Goel), re­ported in 2009(1) GLT344, wherein this Court in paragraph 22 has held as follows: "22. Whether an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. praying for dispensation of the per­sonal appearance and representation by the counsel is to be allowed or not depends on facts of each of the case. Sajjan Kumar Agarwal (Goel), re­ported in 2009(1) GLT344, wherein this Court in paragraph 22 has held as follows: "22. Whether an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. praying for dispensation of the per­sonal appearance and representation by the counsel is to be allowed or not depends on facts of each of the case. The Court, however, while dealing with such a prayer made under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has to consider as to whether any useful purpose would be served by requiring personal attendance of the accused or whether progress of the trial is likely to be hampered on account of absence of the accused person and also must keep in mind the gravity of the offence alleged. The Court while dealing with the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., filed in a summons case, has also to consider as to whether the personal appearance may result in any enormous hardship to an accused and pass such order after taking an undertaking from such accused person that he/she would not dispute his/her identity as to the particular ac­cused in the case, that a counsel on his/her behalf would be present in Court and he/she would have no objection in taking evidence in his/her absence. The main concern of the Court is administration of criminal justice and for that purpose the Court proceeding should register the progress. However, the Magistrate, who grants such benefit under Section 205 to an accused person must take precautions, as stated above. If progress of the trial can be achieved even in absence of the accused, the Court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings, which a particular accused per­son may have to bear with, in order to make himself/herself present in the Court in that case. Such discretion, however, needs to be exercised only in rare instances, where due to the far dis­tance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels, that the accused person would suffer greatly if such prayer is not allowed. Such exercise of power has to be only in the interests of justice. The benefit under Section 205 Cr.P.C. can be given to the accused person even at a first appear­ance through counsel. (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra) and S. V. Muzumdar (supra))." 5. Such exercise of power has to be only in the interests of justice. The benefit under Section 205 Cr.P.C. can be given to the accused person even at a first appear­ance through counsel. (Bhaskar Industries Ltd. (supra) and S. V. Muzumdar (supra))." 5. The petitioner is also a Director of Vinay Cements Limited and is, otherwise, similarly situated with the three persons in respect of whom the learned trial Court had exercised discretion by allowing their application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. The sole ground on which the application of the present petitioner came to be rejected was on the consideration that he is from the neighbouring State. 6. The above, no doubt, is a relevant con­sideration but even in such a case where the accused is not from a far flung place, certain consideration like age and physical condition of the accused also need to be taken into ac­count. 7. Having agreed to the materials on record and considering the submission of Mr. Sinha, learned Addl. PP, Assam, that he does not seriously oppose the application, it is con­sidered appropriate to set aside the order dated 17.08.2011 passed in GR Case No. 622/11 pending before the learned Chief Ju­dicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati with a further direction that the petitioner be ex­empted from personal appearance in the aforesaid case and he be allowed to be rep­resented by his counsel in the aforesaid case. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order, at the time of consideration of the charge, the pres­ence of the petitioner will be required and his counsel will remain present at the time of re­cording of evidence and will not raise any question regarding personal identification. 8. With the aforesaid observations and di­rections, the revision petition stands disposed of.