ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard both the learned counsel and perused the records.

3. The respondent (accused) Joy Chandra Nagbanshi had filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him for offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 IPC, The High Court dismissed that petition but, however, it directed the trial court to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent (accused) and to permit him to appear by his advocate. The relevant portion of the direction reads thus :

"Mr Roy, however states that the petitioner is a social worker and he is known to people of the village. He therefore prayed that he be allowed to be represented by his advocate on subsequent dates. I accept this prayer and direct the trial court to allow representation by his advocate if he is known to the people and no identification is required."

4. In our opinion, the reason given by the High Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the respondent (accused) by invoking the powers under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is untenable especially in a case of this nature, wherein serious allegations are made against the respo