( 1 ) NO case for interference is made out at all. The personal attendance of two of the applicants was exempted under Section 205 (1) Cr. P. C. , and they did not appear in court on any date and consequently were not examined by the court under Section 342, Cr. P. C. I do not consider that their non-examination in these circumstances was an illegality. It is true that under Section 342, cr. P. C. , an accused must be examined after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined, but this presupposes that he is present. There is nothing in the language of Section 342 (1) to suggest that an accused, whose personal attendance has been exempted under Section 205 (1), also must be examined after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined. The exemption from the personal attendance contemplated by Section 205 (1) is for the whole duration of the trial; it follows that an accused can be exempted from personal attendance even on the date on which the examination under Section 342 is to take place. It is for the accused himself, if he wishes to make a statement, to appear in court; there is no-thing to compel the court to summon him for the purpose of examin