V. Mishra, J.

This judgment will govern Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3642 of 1975 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4295 of 1976 as the same point is involved in both the cases. Both the petitions are under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code').

2. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3642 of 1976, petitioner no. I is Shri Nand lal Poddar of Rohtas Industries Ltd., Dalmianagar and petitioner no. 2 is Shri D.V. Singh, the Factory Manager of the said Rohtas Industries Both of them have been prosecuted under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri S. B. Jha, Inspector of Factories. This case was registered as Case No. 91 (0) of 1976 in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram. After taking cognizance, the case was transferred by the Chief Judicial Magistrate to the file of Shri B. K. P. Kashyap, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, for disposal. In his court, it was numbered as Case No. 91 (0)/950 of 1917 (State Vrs. N. L. Poddar and another). They have been prosecuted for a technical offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, which prescribes a penalty of imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to live hundred rupees or with both. Obviously, therefore, it is a summons case. On the 2nd of July, 1976, an application was filed by the petitioners who were accused in that case before Shri B. K. P. Kashyap for permitting them to appear through their lawyer under sections 205 and 317 of the Code. Two petitions have been filed separately on behalf of the two petitioners, which are annexures 2 and 2/a to the application in this Court. Both of them had appeared even before summons was received by them. So far petitioner no. 1 is concerned, his plea was that he did not ordinarily reside at Dalmianagar and in course of business he had to be in Calcutta, Bombay, Delhi and other places as also some times a broad. He had given a list of the firms of which he was Director or Partner or share-holder. He, therefore, prayed for representation through lawyer, of course, undertaking to be personally present in the Court whenever required. Shri D. V. Singh in his petition also disclosed that be was connected with a number of concerns and was also working as the Chief Personnel Manager and Factory Manager of Rohtas Industries Ltd. and he also was required to visit Calcutta, Delhi, Bombay and other places in course of his business. While praying for exemption from personal appearance and representation through lawyer, the also undertook to be personally present in court as and when directed. Both these petitions were filed on 22.7.1976 but were rejected by the same order on 22.7.1976 itself.Tbe main ground for refusal were that their remaining busy with other works could not be a ground for exemption, that they resided very close to the court and that they bad sufficient transport facilities to appear in the court. Against that order, the petitioners have preferred this case under section 482 of the Code.

2. In Criminal Miscellaneous No, 4295 of 1976 the petitioner is Shri J. P. Saxena, Nominated Owner. Baulia Lime Stone Mine of M/s Sone Valley Portland Cement Co, Ltd. Dalmianagar. He along with three others were prosecuted at the instance of the Joint Director of Mines Safety, Kodarma Region, district Hazaribagh, for contravention of certain provisions of the Mines Act, 1952. The petition of complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, on 10.6.1976 and was numbered as Criminal Case No. 89 (0) of 1976, The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under section 22 (3) of the Mines Act, 1952, which is punishable under section 72 B of the Mines Act and transferred the case to the file of Shri B.K.P. Kashyap, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Sasaram, for disposal on 21.6.1976. In the transferee court, It was numbered as Case No. 89 (0) of 19761 TR/No/949/(0)/1976