M.A.A.KHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. This Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is directed against the order dated April 20, 1996, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissed the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. moved by the petitioners.
(2.) THE petitioners are being prosecuted in the Court of learned Magistrate since 13.9.1995 for allegedly having committed the offence punishable under Sections 451, 323 and 504 1PC. After the filing of the charge -sheet the petitioners are stated to have appeared before the learned Magistrate on 13.9.1995, 28.10.1995, 20.12.1995, 24.2.1996, 20.4.1996 and, may be, thereafter. It appears that on 20.4.1996 the substance of the accusation were read over to the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners moved an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. requesting the learned Magistrate to exempt their personal attendance in the case and to allow their appearance through counsel. The contention made by the petitioners in the application was that Jairam (petitioner No. 1) and Kunj Behari (petitioner No. 2), were Govt. servants and they cannot appear before the court on every date of hearing at the cost of their public duties. Petitioner No.3 Dharmendra Singh, is stated to be carrying on some business. In support of their contention, the petitioners relied upon a decision of this Court in Gopalram and Ors. v. The Slate of Rajasthan and Anr. 1994 Cr.L.R.(Raj.) 530. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application of petitioners mainly on the ground that the matter of granting exemption from personal attendance to an accused, is in the discretion of court concerned and that the decision cited by the petitioners does not lay down a contrary law. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that undoubtedly the grant or refusal to grant exemption to an accused person from personal attendance in the course of healing against him, lies within discretion of the Magistrate but such discretion is required to be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The learned counsel further submitted that no question of identity of the accused persons was involved in the present case and since they were duly represented through a counsel, the progress of the trial against them was not likely to be hampered. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out that in the case of Gopalram (supra), this Court had laid down the guidelines for the lower courts and had stressed that ordinarily exemption from personal attendance should be granted in the larger interest of the life of litigation and the proceedings of the case against an accused may be taken in his .absence when his interests are duly safe -guarded by his counsel.
(3.) THE learned public Prosecutor, though supported the older under consideration, yet she stressed that the matter of grant or refusal to grant exemption from personal attendance to an accused person in the course of hearing against him, lies in the discretion of the Magistrate and this Court should not interfere in such matter in exercise of its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.;