Shashank Kumar Singh, J.

1. These applications arise out of the same order, as such, with the consent of the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order and judgment.

2. Present applications have been filed for quashing the order dated 2-12-1992 passed in Special Case No. 100 of 1990 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 54 of 1990 pending in the Court of Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna whereby learned Special Judge has been pleased to reject the applications of the petitioners under Sec. 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) for allowing them to be represented through their counsel during the trial and has also directed for issuance of warrant of arrest against them.

3. Leaned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tried to impress upon this Court, by going into the merit of the case, stating therein, that the petitioners firm were only acting as Agent and were commission holder and the actual agreement was entered into by the firm which is based in the United Kingdom and the State Government and the present firm of which the petitioners are partners only imparted training to the persons who were to inject the medicine and in lieu thereof were to receive 5% as commission. As such according to the learned counsel in the facts of the case, no criminal case at all is made against them.

4. To my mind, at this stage I am not required to enter into the merit of the prosecution case as it has not been challenged before this Court and the same is subject matter of trial before the Special Court and the same can be adjudicated at the proper moment by the competent court. The only point which has to be seen here is that as the petitioners have moved for exemption from personal appearance under Sec. 205 of the Code whether they should have been granted benefit under the said section by the learned Special Court or not and as to whether the Special Judge has erred in refusing the petitioners benefit under Sec. 205 of the Code.

5. Vivek Bhargava (petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 357 of 1993), Satya Prakash Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2198 of 1993) and Pramod Bhargava (Petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 2206 of 1993) who are the partners of the firm namely M/s. Industrial Medical Engineers, Caxton House, New Delhi, filed a petition before the Special Judge (Vigilance), South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 100 of 1990 arising out of Vigilance P.S Case No. 54 of 1990 under Secs. 420, 467, 468, 471, 471-A and read with Sections 109 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Secs. 13(2) and 13(1)(d) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In their petitions for exemption from personal attendance, it had been contended that the petitioner Satya Prakash Bhargava has been suffering from heart disease and he had undergone by-pass surgery and it would be very difficult and hazardous for him to attend the court. As regards others namely Vivek Bhargava and Pramod Bhargava, it was contended that the former was incharge of the account and administration and marketing affairs while the latter were the managing partners and they had to travel throughout the would in connection with business affairs and as such, personal appearance in the court would entail tremendous difficulties and hardship on their pan and by which they would be adversely affected and the interest of the company would also be jeopardized. It was further contended that the petitioners undertake to appear in person in court whenever directed by the court after commencement of the trial.

6. In the present case, 1carnedSpecial Judge in his order dated 2-12-1992 has stated that though benefit of Sec. 205 of the Code has to be liberally extended in trivial and technical cases, and to such accused persons who are ladies, old and sickly persons, workers in factories, daily wage earners, other labourers and busy business people, but as the present case was not of a trivial an