Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to cases where a warrant of arrest has been issued, and a Magistrate cannot exercise the discretion to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused in such cases.

Birendra Pd. Sinha,J.

These three applications have been heard together. In all the three cases the facts are common. The petitioner's case is that he is the managing director of the Katihar Jute Mills (in the State of Bihar) and resides in Calcutta. Three petitions of complaint were filed against him for violation of certain provisions of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Scheme, 1974, read with Sections 6(2) (b), 23 and 14 of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974, by Shri V. B. Singh. Enforcement Officer in the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, on the 11th. September 1975, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate; Patna, giving rise to three cases. viz., Nos. 950(M)/75, 951 (M)/75 and 952 (M)/75. Criminal Miscel1aneous Nos. 433/76, 434/76 and 435/76 arise out of the aforementioned three cases, respectively. The period for which the additional dearness allowances deducted from the employees were not paid in the manner prescribed under the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act are different in the three cases. It is, however, not necessary to state all these facts in greater detail.

2. On receipt of the complaints, the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance under paragraph 7 of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Scheme, 1974, read with Sections 6 (2) (b), 23 and 14 of the Additional Emoluments (Compulsory Deposit) Act, 1974, on the 11th September, 1975, in all the three cases and issued summonses fixing the 25th October, 1975, for appearance of the accused. The petitioner did not appear on the 25th October, 1975. A petition appears to have been filed on behalf of the complainant to issue a warrant of arrest against the petitioner but, as the Service report had not come by then, the Court below fixed the 29th. November, 1975, as the next date in the case. On the 29th, November, 1975, again the petitioner did not appear. Another petition was filed on behalf of the complainant to issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The court below issued a bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner fixing the 20th December, 1975. On the 20th, December, 1975, the petitioner again did not appear in person but a petition seems to have been filed on his behalf to recall the warrant of arrest and fix a date after a month for his appearance in Court. It was stated in the said petition that his non-appearance on the 29th November, 1975, was not intentional rather it was beyond his power to reach the Court. The Court below, on his request, fixed the 31st. January, 1976, for appearance of the petitioner in Court.

From the ORDER :dated the 20th. December, 1975, I find that the petitioner was directed to be present in person on the next date fixed. On the next date, i.e., 31.1.76 the petitioner filed a petition under Section 205. Code of Criminal Procedure, in all these three cases stating, inter alia, that he had nothing to do with the day to day administration of the mill at Katihar and as he was permanently residing at Calcutta. he was not directly responsible for the commission of the alleged offences. It was further stated that the petitioner came to Patna to present himself but all of a sudden fell ill and had to be treated on the 30th. January, 1976 and was advised complete rest for a fortnight. A prayer was made for permission to be represented through a lawyer in all the three cases. The court below recorded the following ORDER :

“From perusal of the record it appears that processes have already been ORDER :ed to be issued against the petitioner for compelling his attendance in court and that the petition u/s 205 Cr. P. C. is not maintainable at this stage. The petition is accordingly rejected.

It further appears that by ORDER :s dated 29-11-75 W/A bailable for Rs. 1000/-was ORDER :ed to be issued against the petitioner accused but the same has not been complied with by the office. Let the ORDER :be complied with at once fixing 23-2-7