IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1636 of 2009 Dr. Suresh Kumar Singh, S/O R.P.Singh, R/O Flat No. 69/C Saket, New Delhi. ……….Petitioner Versus 1. State of Bihar 2. Moinuddin Ahmad, S/O S.B.Ahmad R/O Mohalla- Lalkothi, P.S.- Danapur, Distt.- Patna. ………Opposite Parties ----------- 2. 24.11.2011 The petitioner has preferred this revision application against the order dated 1.09.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in Complaint Case No.1851C/2008, Trial No.3685/2009 by which petition dated 17.07.2009 filed on behalf of the petitioner to dispense with his personal attendance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been rejected. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Director of Minot Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. and used to supply medicines at various places of the country including Bihar and under such circumstance, his personal attendance in the court will be highly detrimental to the business and will cause serious losses to the company. He has further submitted that the 2 petitioner’s counsel will not object to the identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses. He has also submitted that it is not such a case in which the personal presence of the petitioner on each and every date fixed was an imperative in absence whereof, progress of trial would be hindered. In support of his contention, he has referred to a decision in the case of Pramod Bhashin Vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 648. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is no way delaying the proceeding of the complaintant. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that due to non-appearance of the petitioner, the case is pending at present for the examination of witnesses before the charge. Considering the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the impugned order is not fit to be sustained. It is set aside. It will be open to the court to require the personal attendance of the petitioner, if and when required. In the result, this application is allowed. V.K. Pandey ( Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)