1. Heard the parties. The petitioners have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 2.3.2007 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bokaro in Complaint Case No. 373 of 2003. The petitioners are cited as accused and are facing trial for the offences under Sections 420, 468, Page 1306 469, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, besides offence under Section 17 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act. By the order impugned, the learned court below had refused to extend protection to the petitioners under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

2. The petitioners had filed their application for exemption of personal appearance in this cast: under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they being employed as Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Executive Director of Pharmaceutical Company, namely, M/s. Unichem Laboratories Ltd., they have been made accused in this case for alleged acts, which they have not committed, since they being high officials of the Company, they have no direct involvement in the day to day business of the Company and further, that both the petitioners by virtue of their office, are stationed at Companys Headquarters at Bombay and they are also required to undertake business trips not only within India but also outside the country and as such it would be extremely inconvenient and prejudicial to their interest, if exemption for personal appearance is not granted to the petitioners.

3. The learned court below refused the prayer of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners have not made out any justifiable reason to treat them separately when a provision of Section 317 Cr.P.C. is always available to them for being represented by their lawyer instead of putting in their personal appearance on each date. The learned court below had felt that "equality before law being a sacrosanct principle of our Constitution, it should not be diluted by giving carte blanche to any higher factionary to be above law". Assailing the impugned order, Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that learned court below has totally misconceived the scope and purpose of Section 205 Cr.P.C. and has further failed to appreciate the special grounds advanced by the petitioner in support of their prayer. Explaining the circumstances, learned Counsel submits that admittedly both the petitioners are high ranking executives of the Company and they are stationed at the Headquarters of the Company within the State of Maharashtra at Mumbai and by virtue of their office, both the petitioners need to undertake frequent business trips to various places. Learned Counsel explains that the petitioners are sought to be made responsible by way of vicarious liability for some medicines marketed through the marketing division of their Company, though neither of the petitioners are concerned with the Companys marketing section nor were they directly involved in supply of medicines to the complainant. Learned Counsel adds that on considering the merits of the case the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail and thereafter they had appeared before the court below. Learned Counsel explains that even though cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 420, 463, 468 & 469 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, against the petitioners, but none of the offences are applicable to the petitioners. Yet, the petitioners are prepared to face trial and the only concession they had prayed for was to extend the protection under Section 205 Cr.P.C. Learned Counsel explains that this Court on proposal under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is not limited and confined only to cases of petty offences or summons at the trial of the cases, but in appropriate cases even if the offences are triable, the discretion may be exercised in favour of the accused under Section 205 Cr.P.C.

To butteress her argument, learned Counsel refers to the judgment passed by the Patna Hi