Criminal procedure discretion cannot be overridden by blanket High Court directions on personal appearance and examination of accused.

Section 205 CrPC gives the Magistrate discretion to dispense with personal attendance, and that discretion must be exercised on the facts of each case. A superior court cannot impose blanket directions that pre-empt or materially constrain that judgment in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or similar technical offences. Dispensation under Section 313 CrPC in a summons case likewise remains for the trial court to decide according to the statutory text and case circumstances. The High Court's powers under Section 482 CrPC and Article 227 cannot be used to require subordinate courts to follow predetermined procedures or to mandate reasons for departing from such directions. The general directions were inconsistent with the statutory scheme and could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could issue general directions requiring criminal courts, in prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and similar technical offences, to grant exemption from personal appearance and to follow a specified procedure under Sections 205 and 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Analysis: Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 vests a discretion in the Magistrate to dispense with personal attendance, and that discretion must be exercised by the trial court on the facts of the particular case. The existence of that discretion does not permit a superior court to prescribe blanket rules that remove or materially constrain the Magistrate's judgment. Likewise, dispensation under Section 313 in a summons case remains a matter for the trial court, to be decided in accordance with the statutory text and the circumstances of the case. The High Court's inherent and supervisory powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to direct subordinate courts to exercise their discretion in a predetermined manner or to insist on mandatory reasons for any deviation from such judicially created directions.

Conclusion: The general directions issued by the High Court were inconsistent with the statutory scheme and could not be sustained.

---