Judgment : 1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 29-10-2012 passed in C.C.No.73 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili, Prakasam District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Magistrate directed A-1-K.Rama Chandra Murthy and A-2-Vemuri Radha Krishna to appear personally for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 2. The petitioners are A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.73 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili and they are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 500 and 501 of the Indian Penal Code. The personal attendance of the petitioners in C.C.No.73 of 2007 came to be dispensed with by the learned Magistrate under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Petitioners 1 and 2 are stated to be represented by a Special Vakalat holder. On 29-10-2012, the special vakalat holder of petitioners/A-1 and A-2 as well as petitioner No.3 appeared before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Podili. The learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to appear personally for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C on 26-11-2012. Aggrieved by the order directing the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 to be present before the Court personally, the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 in C.C.No.73 of 2007 filed the instant revision under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 3. Heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A-1 and A-2 and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State. 4. Sri N.Vidya Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that since the petitioners are being represented by the Special Vakalat holder, their personal appearance is not necessary for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate to the extent of directing them to appear personally for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C is required to be set aside. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Ramoji Rao v. V.V.Rajam, Dy. Conservator of Forests (1998(1) ALD (Crl.) 126 (AP) and the judgments of Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 401)and S.V.Muzumdarv. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. In support of his contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in Ramoji Rao v. V.V.Rajam, Dy. Conservator of Forests (1998(1) ALD (Crl.) 126 (AP) and the judgments of Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001)7 Supreme Court Cases 401)and S.V.Muzumdarv. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd.(2005) 4 Supreme Court Cases 173).In Ramoji Rao’s case ( 1 supra), a learned Single Judge of this court held that the accused need not personally attend the court for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C when his presence has been dispensed with under Section 205 Cr.P.C., and when a duly authorized pleader appears before the court in place of the accused. In Bhaskar Industries Ltd.’s case (2 supra), the Supreme Court held that a Magistrate in his judicial discretion is empowered to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him and the comparative advantage would be less. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraphs (17) to (19) of the cited judgment and they read thus:- “(17) Thus, in appropriate cases the magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such 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 the further steps in the case. However, on 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 in his behalf would be present in Court and that has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses. (18) A question could legitimately be asked - what might happen if the counsel engaged by the accused (whose personal appearance is dispensed with) does not appear or that the counsel does not co-operate in proceeding with the case? We may point out that the legislature has taken care for such eventualities. Section 205(2) says that the magistrate can in his discretion direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The last limb of Section 317(1) confers a discretion on the magistrate to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any subsequent stage of the proceedings. He can even resort to other steps for enforcing such attendance. (19) The position, therefore, boils down to this: It is within the powers of a magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations to him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need 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 dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when an accused makes an application to a magistrate through his duly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further.” 5. It is trite to refer Section 205 Cr.P.C and it is thus: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused:- (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. It is trite to refer Section 205 Cr.P.C and it is thus: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused:- (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. (2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.” It is a matter of record that the personal appearance of the petitioners has been dispensed with by the learned Magistrate and their special vakalat holder has been appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 6. Section 251 Cr.P.C reads as hereunder:- “251. Substance of accusation to be stated:- When in a summons case the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, the particulars of the offence of which he is accused shall be stated to him and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make, but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge.” 7. The object of the section is merely to appraise the accused of the particulars of the offence and to just enquire from him whether he pleads guilty or if he has any defence to make. It is difficult to construe how the object of the section is defeated if a pleader duly authorised by the accused appears before the Court in the place of the accused at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I am of the view that the accused need not personally attend the court for examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C when his presence has been dispensed with, as provided under Section 205 Cr.P.C. I may hasten to add that it is within the powers of a Magistrate, in his judicial discretion, to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case. Since the petitioners are being represented by a duly authorised pleader, their duly authorised pleader can be examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Therefore, personal appearance of the petitioners at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C examination, unless otherwise specifically essential, is not required. Since the petitioners are being represented by a duly authorised pleader, their duly authorised pleader can be examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. Therefore, personal appearance of the petitioners at the stage of Section 251 Cr.P.C examination, unless otherwise specifically essential, is not required. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioners to be present before the Court for their being examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C is set aside, subject to the petitioners placing on record a Memo that they would not take the plea of prejudice of their being not personally examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of at the stage of admission.