1 CRA 3522-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3522 OF 2010 Arun Roy Choudhary & ors .Applicants V/s. The State of Maharashtra .Respondents & anr. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Senior Counsel with Mr.Vishal Kanade, Mr.Amay Nabar & Mr.Amit Kanani i/b. Hariani & Co.,for the Applicants Mrs.A.A.Mane, APP, for Respondent No.1 - State Mr.Anand Grover i/b. Mr.Vijay Hiremath, Advocate, for Respondent No.2 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. ORDER RESERVED ON : 21ST JANUARY, 2011 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. . This application questions the Order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting applicants' application for grant of exemption from personal appearance before the learned Magistrate. 2 CRA 3522-2010 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for Respondent No.1  State and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.2. 3. The respondent No.2, who is the original Complainant has raised a very serious objection about the tenability of the application after the applicants had allegedly taken the matter to the Supreme Court and had withdrawn the Petition. Considering the nature of grievance made out, I do not propose to go into the question of tenability of the application. 4. By an Order in Criminal Application No.5839 of 2004 passed on 28th April, 2005 this Court had already observed that if an application for exemption from personal appearance filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate may favourably consider the application and accused would not be directed 3 CRA 3522-2010 to remain present in the Court unless their presence is absolutely necessary. Accordingly, the learned Magistrates had from time to time granted exemption to the applicants from personal appearance. It seems that the learned Magistrate had asked the Advocate for the applicants to keep the applicants/accused present before the Court and since the accused failed to remain present, he proceeded to refuse to grant personal exemption to the applicants. It seems that the Complainant was aggrieved because proceedings got stalled on account of the absence of the applicants as well as their advocates. 5. The learned Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants would ensure that the proceedings will not be stalled on account of applicants' absence on any date by ensuring that their lawyer would remain present in the Court and would not seek any adjournment. 4 CRA 3522-2010 Considering the nature of complaint, there is no need of applicants' presence in the Trial Court. Therefore, unless the progress of proceedings is held up due to the applicants' absence, the Trial Court need not insist on applicants' presence as already been indicated in the Order passed by this Court on 28th April, 2005. 6. In view of this, interest of justice would be served by setting aside the impugned Order and directing that the applicants may be exempted from personal appearance by the learned Trial Magistrate so long as their Advocate is present to represent them. If at any point of time, the learned advocate for the applicants remains absent or there is none to represent them, the learned Magistrate would be justified in canceling the personal exemption granted to the applicants and also considered imposing suitable costs for the delay that may be occasioned. 5 CRA 3522-2010 7. Criminal Application is allowed in the above terms. 8. Since respondent No.2 was dragged to this Court on account of lapse on the part of the applicants in ensuring that their Advocate represented them before the Trial Court, the applicant would pay to the respondent No.2 costs quantified at Rs.5000/-. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)