This application is directed against the order dated 12.8.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, C.B.I., Dhanbad in R.C.No.9(A) of 2012-D whereby and whereunder application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for dispensation of the personal attendance was rejected.

2. Before adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the facts upon which the case was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, 471, 477A of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are that one Suman Kumar, Sr. Additional Chief Accounts Officer, DVC, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, Bokaro issued certain cheques to different proprietory firm including the firm of the petitioner M/s. Shambhu Trading Company in conspiracy with proprietors which were encashed and all these acts had been done in conspiracy with each other. The case was taken up for investigation. Upon investigation, culpability of the petitioner, who, according to the petitioner, was only named lender to the firm known as M/s. Shambhu Trading company was found and thereby charge sheet was submitted. Upon submission of the charge sheet, an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed which was rejected taking into account the gravity of the offence.

3. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.

4. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the offence as alleged can be said to be serious but taking into account the role which was played by the petitioner and the fact that the money which was alleged to have been misappropriated has been refunded, the court should have allowed the application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the petitioner happens to be a lady and that she was not managing the affairs of the business of the firm rather she was name lender.

5. The ground on which protection under Section 205 is being sought is not tenable as the provision of Section 205 is invokable in a petty cases which are not serious in nature and that the role being played in the commission of offence by an individual never required to be taken into account in the matter of adjudication of the issue relating to dispensation of personal attendance which would be reflected from the provision as contained in Section 205 which reads as under:-

205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.-(1) whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.

(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.”

6. On going through the aforesaid provision one, at the first instance, would find that nothing is there in the said provision to indicate as to in which categories of the cases the Magistrate should exercise discretion of dispensation with the personal attendance but the clause used in the section as permit him to appear by his pleader does indicate under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the nature of cases in which there may be invocation of the provision of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under the provision, if the Magistrate does find that reason is there for dispensation of personal attendance, he may dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and would permit him to appear by his pleader. In that event the accused may be convicted or acquitted even in his absence but being represented through a Lawyer which is apparent from the provision as contained in Section 253 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:-

253. Conviction on plea of guilty in absence of accused in petty cases.–