D.K. Sinha, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 7.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Rev. No. 196 of 2005 arising out of the order impugned dated 8.8.2005 passed in C.P. Case No. 750 of 2005 by the Court of Sri A.K. Mishra Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder the trial Court had rejected the prayer of the petitioner for dispensation of his personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case cognizance of the offence was taken only under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.5.2005 against the petitioner. On the receipt of the summons, a prayer through his lawyer for dispensation of his personal attendance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was made on the ground that his left leg was amputated above his knee and he would suffer hardship in attending Court. The complainant, in the instant case was the father of the petitioner, who maliciously brought about the present case against his wife and two sons with ulterior motive. Annexaure 4 is the report of the Peerless Hospital, Kolkata and B.K. Roy Research Center in support of amputation of one leg. He further contended that the trial Court is situated on the first floor of the Dhanbad Civil Court and as such it was difficult for the petitioner to climb the staircase of the Court regularly.

3. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petition of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rejected on the ground that petitioner was using the artificial leg therefore, capable to move and he used to drive cars and that he used to visit Bombay, Delhi, Kolkata in connection with the business.

4. Similarly, learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the contention of the petitioner and dismissed the revision petition approving the ground taken by the trial Court in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

5. It was nowhere controverted that the petitioners left leg was amputated above his knee and the present complaint case was brought about by his father. Learned Court below in succession after relying upon the submission advanced on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner used to visit certain places by using artificial leg and used to attend Courts in two other cases, rejected the petition.

6. The Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. held as under: Sections 251 and 205(1) make it clear that in appropriate cases the Magistrate can allow an accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel. The Magistrate is empowered to record the plea of the accused even when his counsel makes such plea on behalf of the accused in a case where the personal appearance of the accused is dispense with. Section 317 of the Code has to be viewed in the above perspective as it empowers the Court to dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused (provided he is represented by a counsel in the case) even for proceeding with the future steps in the case. However, one precaution which the Court should take in such a situation is that the said benefit need be granted only to an accused who gives an undertaking to the satisfaction of the Court that he would not dispute his identity as the particular accused in the case, and that a counsel on his behalf would be present in Court and that he has no objection in taking evidence in his absence. This precaution is necessary for the further progress of the proceedings including examination of the witnesses.

7. A Bench of this Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Karuna Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in 2005 (1) East Cr C 176 (Jhr) held as under: In the case of Ram Harsh Das v. State of Bihar reported in 1998 (1) All PLR 495, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court while appr