JUDGMENT . Talapatra, J.:- By this revision petition an interlocutory order of Magistrate has been called in question. The nature of the order itself shows that an element of finality as regards the cross examination of the witnesses has been recorded by the Magistrate. 2. The interdict contained in Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order. Whether an order is interlocutory or not, cannot be decided by merely looking at the order or merely because the order was passed at the interlocutory stage. The safe test laid down by the apex court through a series of decisions is that if the contention of the petitioner, who moves the superior court in revision, as against the order under challenge is upheld, would the criminal proceedings as a whole would culminate? If that would, then the order is not interlocutory in spite of the fact that it was passed during any interlocutory stage. 3. In Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1977) 4 SCC 551 the law has been further clarified as under: An order rejecting the plea of the accused on a point which, when accepted, will conclude the particular proceeding, will surely be not an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397(2). 4. Madhu Limaye (supra) has been affirmed by the four-Judge Bench of the apex court in V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI reported in 1980 Supp SCC 92, Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam reported in (1999) 3 SCC 134 and in K.K. Patel v. State of Gujarat reported in (2000) 6 SCC 195 . In Madhu Limaye (supra) and V.C. Shukla (supra) the law on determining the nature of the order, interlocutory or not have been restated by the apex court. 5. By the impugned orders dated 28.10.2013, 29.10.2013, 30.10.2013 and 31.10.2013 delivered in PRC No. 965 of 2011 the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. 3, Agartala, West Tripura has examined the witnesses on rejecting the prayer of adjournment made by the petitioners. 6. It appears from the orders dated 28.10.2013 that a petition for adjournment was submitted along with a copy of the medical certificate but that petition was not pressed. 6. It appears from the orders dated 28.10.2013 that a petition for adjournment was submitted along with a copy of the medical certificate but that petition was not pressed. Rather the learned counsel for the petitioners had pressed for leave of the court under Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. for representation of the accused persons by their engaged counsel in their absence. However, on that day the case was adjourned. On 29.10.2013, on the same ground a petition for adjournment supported by the medical certificate of illness of the petitioner namely Manoranjan Debnath was moved. But that was not allowed. On that day the Magistrate examined the witnesses but the defence counsel did not cross examine the witnesses and persistently pressed for adjournment. By the order dated 30.10.2013 again the adjournment was prayed but that was also not allowed by the Magistrate, rather he examined two witnesses who had turned up on receiving the summons from the court. The defence counsel did not cross examine the witnesses. On 31.10.2013 except the accused persons namely Manoranjan Debnath, other three accused persons were present before the court. The prayer for adjournment was rejected. Later on, two witnesses were examined in presence of the three accused persons namely Goutam Ghosh, Uttam Ghosh and Smti. Mahua Ghosh, but in absence of the accused Manoranjan Debnath, who was allowed to be represented by the defence counsel by the order dated 28.10.2013. All these orders are challenged by the petitioners in this petition on the ground that those orders have been passed in breach of Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. which stipulates that evidence is to be taken in presence of the accused. Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. provides that: Except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceeding shall be taken in the presence of the accused, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader. 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the medical ground those petitions for adjournment were filed. By refusal to grant adjournment and denying the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. One of the important aspects of fair trial rights of the accused persons has been thus denied by the impugned orders. 8. From the other hand, Mr. By refusal to grant adjournment and denying the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioners. One of the important aspects of fair trial rights of the accused persons has been thus denied by the impugned orders. 8. From the other hand, Mr. Ghosh, learned PP has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned orders and as such no interference from this Court is called for. 9. On perusal of the records so produced with the revision petition, it appears that on 28.10.2013, 29.10.2013, 30.10.2013 as well as on 31.10.2013 the other accused persons were present along with their respective counsel. But neither the accused persons nor their learned counsel cross examined the witnesses as produced by the prosecution. Even the defence counsel was allowed to represent the other accused persons in terms of Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. Despite that, no cross examination was carried out by the accused persons. Sub-Section 1 of Section 317 of the Cr.P.C., envisages two exigencies when the court can proceed with the trial in a criminal case after dispensing with the personal attendance of an accused and one of the exigencies being when the accused persistently disturbs the proceeding. The other exigency is that if a court is satisfied that in the interest of justice the personal attendance of an accused before it need not be insisted on, then the court has the power to dispense with the attendance of that accused. The normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in presence of the accused. However, even in the absence of the accused such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court, provided he has been granted exemption from attending the court. The concern of the criminal court should primarily be the administration of criminal justice. The purpose is obvious proceedings of the court should register progress in the case. Presence of the accused in the court is not for marking his attendance just for the sake of seeing him in the court. It is to enable the court to proceed with the trial. The purpose is obvious proceedings of the court should register progress in the case. Presence of the accused in the court is not for marking his attendance just for the sake of seeing him in the court. It is to enable the court to proceed with the trial. If the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the 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 present in the court in that particular case. If the adjournments are liberally granted, that would definitely delay the trial, particularly in the cases where fast-tracking of the trial is absolutely essential for ensuring fair trial. It has been observed by the Magistrate that only after dispensing the attendance of one of the accused persons and allowing him to be represented by the counsel, he has examined the witnesses. Even then the defence counsel, who was in the court, did prefer not to cross-examine the witnesses despite having been so asked for. 10. Having circumstanced thus, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. However, if a proper application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. is made the accused persons may be granted a single opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and such opportunity only be allowed on deposit of the cost of the witnesses for that purpose. With this observation and direction, this revision petition stands rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.