As these Criminal Revisions are connected on factual matrix, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Crl.R.C.No.357 of 2016 has been directed by A1 as against the dismissal of Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2015 in C.C.No.260 of 2014 (Judicial Magistrate No.II, Chengalpattu), which has been filed to recall NBW without her personal appearance before the Court.

3. Crl.R.C.No.369 of 2016 is directed as against the dismissal of her Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 in C.C.No.260 of 2014 filed under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. to dispense with her personal attendance in the said Court.

4. A1 is being prosecuted before the said Magistrate's Court for certain offences. Copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is to be furnished to her. A1 filed Section 317 Cr.P.C petition to condone her absence on a particular hearing date. It was allowed and the case was posted to a subsequent hearing. On that hearing also, it is stated that the learned counsel for A1 was late in attending the Court. However, by the time NBW was issued against A1.

5. In such circumstances, A1 filed Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2015 to recall the NBW without the personal appearance of A1. Medical Certificate for A1 also has been produced. A1 is 74 years old too. It was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the case is pending without any progress.

6. A1 also filed Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 under Section 205 of Cr.P.C through his counsel, to dispense with her personal appearance. A1's counsel also gave personal undertaking to receive copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on behalf of A1. He had also filed a petition to furnish the copy. However, Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 was also dismissed on the very same day on the very same reasoning. Aggrieved, A1 has directed these revisions.

7. I have heard both sides, perused the impugned orders and the materials on record.

8. At first blush, both the impugned orders are not in accordance with law. They suffer from legality. They also suffer from propriety. The learned Magistrate appears to be not sensitive to the issue and refused to understand the reality of the situation as well as the law on the point.

9. Earlier, when a petition is filed to recall NBW, surrender petition used to be filed and the accused should present/appear/surrender before the Court. Now it has become obsolete. In fact, while sitting in Madurai Bench in Karuppiah @ Chinnathambi vs. The Inspector of Police, Embal Police Station, Avudaiyarkoil Taluk, Pudukottai District '[2014 – 2 – L.W. (Crl.) 616]', I have held that to recall NBW, the presence of the accused need not be insisted upon. Several decisions of this Court on similar lines are also available. The trial Court simply ignored this settled position of law. Thus, the impugned order in Crl.M.P.No.1289 of 2015 must go.

10. The next issue is appearance of accused by special vakalath. These petitions are filed under Section 205 Cr.P.C. They are not uncommon in Criminal Courts.

11. Section 205 Cr.P.C runs 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 herein before provided.

12. Section 205 Cr.P.C. has two parts. Section 205(1) Cr.P.C enables the Court to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused. However, some arrangements have to be made by the accused by engaging a counsel to represent the accused. But if we read the language employed in Sections 205(1) and 205(2) Cr.P.C, there is no absolute right in the accused that he will never or ever appear before the Court.

13. Section 205(2) Cr.P.C enables the Court to direct the accused to present in the Court although his personal appearance has been