Personal appearance in summons trials may be dispensed with where attendance serves no useful purpose and identity is undisputed.

In a summons case under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, the court noted that exemption from personal attendance is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously. Where the accused does not dispute identity and appears through counsel, insisting on repeated personal presence is unnecessary if it does not advance the trial. The petitioners' circumstances, including residence outside Delhi and household responsibilities, made routine attendance an undue burden and served no useful purpose. The refusal to grant exemption was therefore inconsistent with the governing principle, and personal appearance was dispensed with subject to the Magistrate's power to require attendance on a particular date for recorded reasons and subject to filing the required undertaking.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners, facing a criminal complaint under Section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were entitled to exemption from personal appearance before the Magistrate.

Analysis: The power to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused in a summons case is discretionary but must be exercised judiciously. Where the accused does not dispute identity and appears through counsel, insistence on personal presence is unnecessary if it does not advance the trial. The petitioners were stated to be a practising advocate residing outside Delhi and a housewife, and their repeated attendance was found to serve no useful purpose and cause undue inconvenience. The refusal to grant exemption was therefore inconsistent with the governing principle on personal appearance in summons trials.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to exemption from personal attendance, subject to the Magistrate's right to require their presence on any particular date for recorded reasons and subject to the filing of the required undertaking.

---