Judicial discretion under S.205, CrPC. allows representation by pleader; insistence on personal attendance for first hearings is contrary to fair trial principles.

1. The petitioners, to whom summons under S 205, CrPC., have been issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, on a complaint instituted by the respondent herein, for offences under S.420, S.409 and S.500, I.P.C., and whose prayer under S.205(1), CrPC., for permission to be represented by a Pleader has been turned down, invoke the inherent powers of this Court for a direction to the court below for the above relief.

2. The Respondent filed a private complaint against the Petitioners for offences under S.420, S.409 and S.500, I.P.C. The complaint was taken on file by the court below for the above offences and, by registered post, summons were sent to the Petitioners for their appearance on 28.4.1987. On that day, the petitioner's counsel appeared in court and tiled an application under S.205(1), CrPC., for dispensing with the appearance of the petitioners and permitting them to be represented through their counsel, on the ground that the petitioners were residing in Madras and were doing extensive business in Madras and in other places, that the 1st petitioner was the Manager of the Company and the others were the partners, that all of them would be travelling to various places in India and often out of India also, in connection with their business and that therefore they should be permitted to appear through their counsel.

3. The Court below turned down their request on the ground that it had been the practice of that court to insist on the personal appearance of every accused for the first hearing and that it was only proper that every accused should personally appear in court for the first hearing, which alone would enable the court to find out the truth about the accused. Learned Magistrate has also stated that the reasons put forward by the petitioners, could not be accepted, as justifying an order dispensing with their personal appearance. The petition, therefore, was dismissed, and nonbailable warrants were issued against the Petitioners. Hence the present petition.

4. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Trial Court insisting upon the appearance of the accused for the first hearing could be legally sustained.

5. S.205, CrPC., reads as follows:--
(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) xxxx xxxx xxxx
The above section makes it clear that even when initially the trial court issues a summon, it is open to the Magistrate not to insist on the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.

6. It is the baste principle of criminal jurisprudence that nothing shall take place behind the back of the accused. If a presumption of innocence is raised in his favour, it is the primary duty of the court to take all steps to ensure that a fair trial is given to him. It is on the basis of this principle that the accused is required to be present during trial. Nowhere in the Criminal Procedure Code do we find that the accused has to be present at each and every hearing of the case. To require so would cause hardship to the accused and would also stand in the way of an expeditious trial. S.317, CrPC., provides for a trial being held in the absence of the accused, if the accused is represented by a Pleader and the court is satisfied that the personal attendance of the accused is not necessary. No doubt, the court has to record its reasons for the same. It is under this benovolent provision that applications made by the accused through their counsel, on occasions when due t