Exemption from Section 313 examination cannot be refused without reasons where personal appearance has already been dispensed with.

Where accused persons have already been exempted from personal appearance under section 205 CrPC, a Magistrate should not refuse exemption from examination under section 313 CrPC without reasons or indication of incriminating material requiring such examination. The Calcutta High Court noted that the petitioners were prosecuted under the Companies Act, their attendance had been dispensed with during trial, and the exemption request after prosecution evidence was rejected summarily despite no objection from the opposite party. In those circumstances, the refusal was treated as an improper exercise of jurisdiction and was set aside, with the matter directed to proceed before the Magistrate after allowing the exemption application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Magistrate was justified in refusing to dispense with the petitioners' examination under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure after having exempted them from personal appearance under section 205 of the Code.

Analysis: The petitioners were facing prosecution under section 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. Their personal attendance had been dispensed with during the trial, and they sought exemption from examination under section 313 after the close of prosecution evidence. The Magistrate rejected the request without assigning any reason and without indicating that any incriminating material existed requiring their examination. In such circumstances, and in the absence of any objection from the opposite party, the refusal to grant exemption was treated as an improper exercise of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refusal to dispense with the petitioners' examination under section 313 was unjustified and was set aside in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the matter was directed to proceed before the Magistrate after allowing the exemption application.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the accused has already been exempted from personal appearance and no incriminating evidence necessitating examination under section 313 is disclosed, the court should not refuse exemption without reasons.

---