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. 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 t