The central legal point established is the responsibility of the accused to engage a defense counsel when their personal appearance is dispensed with, and the need for pragmatism in dispensing with the personal appearance of the accused to avoid wastage of resources.

Practically, this revision petition could be termed as petition to recall N.B.W.

2. There are 7 accused, who are being prosecuted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai in C.C.No.5 of 2015, for their alleged commission of certain economic offences. The personal appearance of the petitioner/A5 has been dispensed with by this Court, while disposing of his quash petition in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.12416 of 2011 and 648 to 650 of 2015.

3. In this case, trial has started. Prosecution witnesses are being produced. In the circumstances, on 16.06.2016, prosecution produced witness Nos.20 and 21. Since none has represented the petitioner/A5, not even his counsel was present, his absence was noted by the Court and N.B.W. was ordered against A5. Consequently, the witnesses could not be examined.

4. Subsequently, on 04.07.2016, the petitioner filed Cr.M.P.No.805 of 2016 to recall N.B.W. without appearing in person, however, quoting certain decisions of this Court.

5. The trial Court on holding that in the facts and circumstances of this case, those decisions are not applicable to this case and dismissed his N.B.W recall petition.

6. Now N.B.W. is hanging over on his head.

7. At this juncture, he is before us questioning the legality of the Trial Court's order, dated 04.07.2016.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, due to his ill-health, for reasons beyond his control, he could not allowed, he may be given an opportunity and he will co-operate with the trial of the case.

9. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that because of his conduct, trial was spoiled on 16.06.2016. This is what also has been the stand of the prosecution in their report to the Court.

10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and also the materials on record.

11. In order to ease out the crowd and make the atmosphere of the criminal Court congenial, liberal, use of Section 205 of Cr.P.C., has been advocated. That is how, petitions to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused before the Trial Courts are being flooded the Courts. Further, when the attendance of the accused is absolutely not necessary for the hearing of the case which is used to called 'formal hearing', there is no use or purpose in making him to attend the Court. It results crowds being gathered inside the Court. The concentration of the Prosecution, Defence and also the Court get affected. It becomes waster of time, energy and money. So, courts dispense the personal/physical appearance of the accused.

12. Normally, when personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with, it goes without saying that it is the responsibility of the accused to make some arrangements through a learned counsel to look after his interest in the case. Further, if his appearance is really necessary, such as, for recording his plea, when his identity is involved, for his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for his questioning on sentence, for his presence to hear the judgment, for sending him to jail or even to hear pronouncement of verdict of acquittal, or for any reason, when the physical presence of the accused in the Court is absolute necessary, the Court can insist upon his physical presence in the Court.

13. Sometimes, when the personal appearance of the accused is dispensed with and the accused is being represented by a learned defence counsel and when witnesses are produced and if the learned defence counsel is not present, certainly, the interest of the accused would be at stake, further it would be a problem for the Court to transact judicial business in the said case, on the hearing day, as it has happened in the present case.

14. On 16.06.2016, it is stated that the learned defence counsel was elsewhere. In such circumstances, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having noticed that two witnesses were produced by the prosecution and they could not be examined because of the absence of petitioner's lawye