A. M. Chaturvedi, J.

1. This is a petition under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 23.2.95 passed by Sri M. J. Islam, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, patna in Complaint Case No.607 (C)of 1993 whereby the learned magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioners for appearance through their lawyer under Sec.205 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

2. It appears that opposite party no.2 Awadnesh Kumar Singh filed a complaint (annexure-1) on 4.7.94 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, patna alleging therein that on 12.10.93 the petitioners came to his shop at 10.30 A. M. and offered Super Stockist-ship of Tablets (India) Ltd. to him (op-posite party No.2) if he immediately paid Rs.2,39,000/- in cash and the (complainant) reluctantly gave a self-cheque No.5814187 dated 12.10.93 for rs.2,39,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, gandhi Maidan, Patna to petitioner no.1 who got the same encashed through petitioner No.3. Further allegation in the complaint petition is that the complainant contacted the petitioner on various occasion and also wrote letters but he was neither awarded s. tockistship of Tablets (India)Ltd. nor the amount advanced by him was returned back to him and thus, he was cheated by the petitioners.

3. It appears from the petition that after enquiry under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Court below passed an order on 1.10.94 taking cognizance of offence under section 420/34 of the Indian- Penal Code and ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioners. In pursuance of summons the petitioners appeared before the learned magistrate through their lawyer and filed a petition for allowing them to be represented through their lawyer under section 205 of the Code of Criminal procedure. By the impugned order the learned magistrate rejected the petition of the petitioners and hence this petition under Sec.482, Cr. P. C. , for quashing the impugned order dated 23.2.95 and for allowing the petitioners to be represented through their lawyer under Sec.205, Cr. PC.

4. Referring to the complaint petition (annexure-1) it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner No.1 is chairman-cum-Managing Director of tablets (India) Ltd. , Madras and similarly, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 are vice-President, General Manager and regional Manager, respectively of the said Company. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that tablets (India) Ltd. , Madras is a reputed company of India which manufactures/produces medicines including life-saving drugs and the petitioners being senior executives of the company remain mostly on tour in various parts of the country and also outside for the purpose of trade and business of the company and under the circumstances their personal attendance in Court will be highly detrimental to the business and will cause serious losses to the company. It was also contended that the presence of the petitioners in Court on the dates fixed in the case is bound to effect regular and proper manufacture, supply and distribution of medicines including life-saving drugs manufactured by the company and under the circumstances their prayer for exemption from personal attendance and their representation through lawyer under Sec.205 of the Code of criminal Procedure deserves sympathetic consideration. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a Bench decision of this Court reported in 1979 b. B. C. J.437 in which Muneshwari sahay (J), as he then was, held that benefit of Sec.205, Cr. P. C. , should be extended to busy businessmen and industrialists. Undoubtedly, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners finds support from the bench decision of this Court, referred to above.

5. It was further contended on behalf of the petitioners that sub-section 2 of Sec.205 Cr. P. C. provides that the magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any s