Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.

1. Heard Sri Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department.

2. This revision application is directed against the order dated 12-12-2008, passed by learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna, in Special Case No. 30 of 2005, whereby he has rejected the petition of the petitioners under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C.

3. Petitions are facing prosecution under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 201/120-B, IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section (1)(d) of the P.C. Act.

4. The prosecution case in short is that a limited competitive examination of Government employees for appointment/promotion to the post of Bihar Administrative Service, Class II was conducted by the Bihar State Public Service Commission (BPSC). The examination has been termed as First Limited competitive examination. Only Government employees in Class III who had put in a given number of years in service were eligible to appear in this examination. It is alleged that a large number of candidates got themselves declared successful by adopting unfair and dubious means with tacit connivance of the officials of the Commission and others. In para 10 of the counter-affidavit gross manipulations and embezzlements including breaking locks of strong room of Commission and erosion in answers books have been alleged by the prosecutrix. A copy of the FIR has been annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition.

5. Petitioners submit that they are not named in the FIR. They vehemently deny the allegations levelled against them in prosecution case. They controvert allegation of connivance with the Chairman and staff of the Commissions. They further contend that even if allegations are taken at their face value, they could be charged maximum under the Examination Act. They allege that Vigilance Investigation Bureau without any sufficient materials got issued warrant of arrest against them on defective requisitions even though investigation was pending. Petitioner filed Cr.W.J.C. No. 380 of 2006 in this Court. This Court after hearing the parties stayed warrant of arrest against them till filing of the charge sheet. The Vigilance after investigation filed nine charge sheets against total number of 109 accused perr sons including 97 successful candidates Inclusive of petitioners.

6. Consequent to filing of charge sheets, the learned Special Judge, Vigilance on 2-1-2008 took cognizance of the offence and summoned the petitioners to face trial, vide order dated 15-1-2008.

7. The petitioners as, such filed a petition on 7-2-2008 under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Special Judge for dispensing their personal attendance and to allow them to appear thuough their lawyers. The learned Special Judge by his order dated 2-12-208 rejected the application of petitioners under Section 205, Cr.P.C. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order have filed the instant criminal revision application.

8. The petitioners submit that Section 205, Cr.P.C. provides that whenever a Magistrate issues summons and if he is satisfied, he may dispense with the personal attendance of an accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. He submits that as per Section 204(1)(b) even in a warrant case, a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, it he thinks fit may instead of issuing a warrant can issue summon for his appearance. Further more, as per Section 204(1)(a) a Magistrate shall necessarily issue summon in a summon case.

9. Elaborating his points he submits, that Chapter VI of Cr.P.C. deals with processes to compel appearance. Sections 61 to 69 deals with issuance of summon whereas Sections 70 to 81 deals with issuance of warrant of arrest. In case where summons is issued to an accused person then on his so appearance he may be allowed to let go even without taking any surety. In support of his contention he relied upon Form No. 1 appended to second schedule. The Form also allow