ORDER : The complainant is before this Court in this revision petition challenging the order dated 14.08.2017 passed in Sessions Case No.269 of 2014 by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi sitting at Chikkodi, thereby allowing the application filed by the accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking exemption from personal attendance. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are facing trial in Sessions Case No.269 of 2014 before the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity). 4. Before the Court below, the accused/respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’ for brevity) seeking exemption from the personal attendance before the Court below. To the said application, the complainant/petitioner filed objections. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 14.08.2017 was pleased to allow the said application and dispensed with the personal appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2 that is respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, directing that, they shall appear before the Court as and when directed, at the time of trial. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the learned Sessions Judge could not have entertained the application filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. since such an application is maintainable before the learned Magistrate and not before the Sessions Court. He further submitted that the personal attendance of the accused could have been dispensed only for the day and not permanently as directed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he seeks to allow the revision petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has got ample power to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused in a given case when the accused is represented by his counsel. He further submitted that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and accordingly seeks to dismiss the revision petition. 7. He further submitted that the discretion exercised by the learned Sessions Judge is in accordance with law and accordingly seeks to dismiss the revision petition. 7. It is no doubt true that under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., power is given to the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his Pleader. Section 205 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “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 a manner hereinbefore provided.” 8. It is also relevant to note that under Section 317 of Cr.P.C., a Judge or a Magistrate, if satisfied, with reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of an accused is not necessary in the case, in the interest of justice, etc. can dispense with the personal attendance and proceed with the said inquiry in his absence. Section 317 of Cr.P.C. reads as under: “317. Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused in certain cases.- (1) At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the court is not necessary in the interests of justice, or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in court, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a pleader, dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately. 9. (2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a pleader, or if the Judge or Magistrate considers his personal attendance necessary, he may, if he thinks fit and for reasons to be recorded by him, either adjourn such inquiry or trial, or order that the case of such accused be taken up or tried separately. 9. In view of the above, though the application was filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., it cannot be said that there is no power vested with the learned Sessions Judge to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused. 10. It is also relevant to refer to Section 273 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under: “273. Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.-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.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD. v. BHIWANI DENIM & APPARELS LTD. AND OTHERS reported in (2001) 7 Supreme Court Cases 401, at paragraph 14 has held as under: “14. The normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the 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. For that purpose the proceedings of the court in the case should register progress. 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.” 12. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, while considering the application filed by the accused, at para 12 of the judgment, has observed as under: “ 12. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge, while considering the application filed by the accused, at para 12 of the judgment, has observed as under: “ 12. It is very much pertinent to note that learned counsel for the accused has produced the certificate issued by Chartered Accountant stating that, Ghodawat Group has paid taxes as per the given annexure in F.Y.2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. He also produced a certificate dated 15.03.2017 to show that, Ghodawat Group Companies include many enterprises, institutions, textiles etc., He also produced form No.102. He also produced form No.B and form RC. It is to be noted that, the accused No.1 and 2 are the businessmen and having a number of business establishments and charitable institutions throughout Maharashtra, Karnataka, Gujarat and Rajasthan. It is to be noted that, the circumstances mentioned in the application certainly reveals that, if the application is not allowed much hardship will be caused to accused No.1 and 2 and if the application is allowed no hardship will be caused to the prosecution. Therefore, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.” Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the revision petition, I.A. No.III of 2018 filed for stay also stands dismissed.