IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR.MISC. NO.55989 OF 2007 RAJAN NANDA, SON OF LATE H. P. NANDA, ESCORTS FINANCE LIMITED, N-6 PRATAP BUILDING, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SYED ABID IMAM, SON OF LATE SYED HAIDER IMAM, RESIDENT OF RIVER VIEWS.D.O. LANE, BADARGHAT, POLICE STATION ALAMGANJ, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT PATNA …………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES WITH CR.MISC. NO.55987 OF 2007 PARTHA SARKAR, SON OF LATE A.S. SARKAR, ESCORTS FINANCE LIMITED, N-6 PRATAP BUILDING, CANNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SYED ABID IMAM, SON OF LATE SYED HAIDER IMAM, RESIDENT OF RIVER VIEWS.D.O. LANE, BADARGHAT, POLICE STATION ALAMGANJ, PATNA CITY, DISTRICT PATNA ………………………………………………………………….OPPOSITE PARTIES *********** 2 25/03/2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. These two applications have been filed challenging the order dated 24.11.2006 passed in complaint Case No. 543 (C) of 2006 by which the Judicial Magistrate, Patna has rejected the application filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Revisional order dated 27.07.2007 passed in Criminal Revision No. 1049 of 2006 by which the Sessions Judge, Patna has rejected the revisional application. The petitioner Rajeev Nanda is the Chairman of the Escorts Finance Company and the 2 petitioner Partha Sarkar is the Managing Director of the Escorts Finance Company. Both the petitioners live in Delhi and are the busy Executives of the Company who have to look after the affairs of the Company and have to go abroad for business of the company. They have, therefore, prayed that they may be permitted to be represented by their Counsels in the Court. The Court below has rejected their applications on the ground that such persons who are operating the affairs of the Company, are trying to induce the common person to invest in their Company after alluring the common people to deposit their savings in their Company, without fulfilling the promises made on behalf of the Company. Undoubtedly, all persons who are summoned in the Court to appear in a case must to do so which is a mandate of the law. Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, however, authorize a Magistrate to dispense with the personal appearance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader and further also direct the personal appearance of the accused, as and when necessary and to enforce attendance in such a manner as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Considering that the petitioners are not 3 petty criminals and are persons holding responsible posts, I quash the orders rejecting the applications under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure passed in Complaint Case No. 543 C of 2006 with a rider that the petitioners should give an undertaking that they would appear before the Court as and when called upon by the Court. The petitioners would also keep the Court informed through a petition filed by their respective Counsels with respect to their travel abroad and the period that they are likely to be away. With the aforesaid riders, these two applications are allowed. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)