The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretionary power of the Magistrate to dispense with the presence of the accused and the necessity of recording reasons for such decisions, as well as the mandatory nature of certain provisions and the need for judicial discretion in dispensing with the presence of the accused for examination under specific sections of Cr.PC.

The petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code to quash the orders passed in Crl.M.P. No. 1384 of 2001 dated 4-5-2001 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad and also for necessary direction to accept the special vakalat filed by the Counsel.

2. The facts that led to filing of the petition can be briefly stated as follows. The first respondent herein presented a complaint in CC No. 257 of 2000 on the file of II Metropolitan Magistrate, Criminal Courts, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner company, represented by its Chairman viz., Dasari Narayana Rao.

3. The Second Metropolitan Magistrate, issued summons to the accused/petitioner herein and after receipt of summons, the company engaged Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao as its Counsel who presented a special vakalat and a petition under Section 305 of Cr.PC vide Crl. M.P.No. 1384 of 2001 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Thereafter, the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, has dismissed the same on 4-5-2001 on the ground that the case is coming up for examination of the accused under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner presented the present petition.

4. Learned Counsel for petitioner assails the order of the Magistrate on the ground that his presence is not required and it can be dispensed with and the Court has got ample power to dispense with his power under Section 205 of Cr.PC by permitting the advocate to represent the petitioner by way of special vakalat. It is also contended by the petitioner's Counsel that the Court has got ample jurisdiction to get the plea of the accused/petitioner recorded through the Counsel having special vakalat.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contends that it is not a fit case, where inherent powers can be exercised to quash the proceedings.

6. Adverting to the said contentions, it is necessary to decide about the scope and power of the Magistrate in entertaining application under Section 205 of Cr.PC permitting an advocate to represent the accused/petitioner under special vakalat.

7. Section 205 of Cr.PC reads as follows:

"Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused:-(1) Whenever 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 the manner hereinbefore provided."

8. It is clear from the provisions of Section 205 Cr.PC that whenever a Magistrate issues summons, it can dispense with the presence and permit him to appear by his pleader. No further guidelines are mentioned under Section 205 Cr.PC. It is left to the discretion of the Magistrate to exercise his discretion judicially. It is clearly stated that the Magistrate has to record reasons before the allowing or disallowing an application under Section 205 of Cr.PC seeking permission to represent a Counsel by special vakalat.

9. The only ground mentioned in the order is that accused's presence is required for his examination under Section 251 of Cr.PC. The Supreme Court in Mahanth Kaushalya Das v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 22, states that the requirements of the section are mandatory and a violation of these provisions vitiates the trial and renders the conviciton legally invalid. It is categorically stated that the presence of the accused is necessary since the plea has to be recorded in the words used by the accused.

10. The High Court of Calcutta in Thekethodika Mammadunni v. Adangalpuravan Alavikutty, 1988 Crl. LJ 53, held as follows:

"Mr. Safiulla appearing for the State drew my attention to sub-section (2) to Section 205 which, lays down tha