1. The respondent/complainant herein has filed petitions under Sections 200 Cr. P.C. against the petitioners herein before the Fast Tract Court-II/Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore for punishing them under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, for having committed dishonour of cheques. The said complaint were taken on file by the trial Court as C.C. Nos. 1922 and 1923 of 2015. Pending trial of the said petitions, the petitioners moved petitions under Section 205 Cr. P.C. praying to dispense with the personal appearance for the reasons that they are busy businessmen and frequently travel abroad and also to look after day today affairs of their company and to permit their counsel Mr. R. Aneesan to appear and represent on their behalf on all hearing dates.

2. By orders, dated 11.8.2015 in Criminal M.P. Nos. 1922 and 1923 of 2015, the Court below has dismissed the petitions, on the ground that the petitioners were absent on previous hearing dates and their counsel appeared and filed petitions under Section 317 Cr. P.C. and the present petitions to dispense with the personal attendance were filed only with an intent to prolong the case and hence, not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come forward with the present petitions.

3. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that Sections 251 and 205(1) make it clear that in appropriate cases, the Magistrate can allow the accused to make even the first appearance through a counsel and the learned 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 dispensed with. He also pointed out that the Magistrate can, in his discretion, direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings and therefore, it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings. He pointed out that this discretion vested in the Magistrate will have to be exercised liberally on the relevant facts. However, the learned Magistrate, without considering the bona fide reasons specified by the petitioners for their inability to make appearance before the Court, has simply dismissed the petitions with a view that the petitions were filed with an intention to prolong the case. He also submitted that when the accused makes an application to the Magistrate through his duly authorised counsel, praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with, the Magistrate ought to have considered all the aspects and passed the appropriate orders, which was not done in the present case. With these contentions, the learned senior counsel sought for setting aside the orders of the Court below and urged to dispense with the personal attendance of the petitioners. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied upon the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court.

4. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and perused the entire materials available on record.

5. It is not doubt true that in the matter of exempting the accused from personal appearance in appropriate cases, Criminal Procedure Code has given ample discretion to the Courts. Section 205(1) enables the Magistrate can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader if he is satisfied with the reason mentioned by the accused. Ordinarily in a criminal case, evidence has to be rerecorded in the presence of the accused, however, Section 273 Cr. P.C. envisages that in appropriate cases, the personal appearance of the accused could be dispensed with and evidence could be recorded in the presence of the pleader. Likewise, Section 317 Cr. P.C. also empowers the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be