Personal appearance exemption under criminal procedure must be judged on real grounds pleaded, with attendance still callable later.

An application under Section 205 CrPC for exemption from personal appearance is not barred merely because the accused has already appeared, since the Magistrate may dispense with attendance whenever summons issue and may still require presence later. The court must consider the actual grounds pleaded, and refusal cannot rest on irrelevant considerations. Here, distance from the trial court, residence outside the place of trial, and the burden of repeated attendance were material grounds supporting exemption. The challenge to maintainability failed, the refusal of dispensation was found erroneous, and personal appearance was waived subject to the court's power to direct attendance when necessary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an application seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred merely because the accused had appeared in court; (ii) whether the accused had made out sufficient grounds for dispensation of personal attendance.

Issue (i): Whether an application seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was barred merely because the accused had appeared in court.

Analysis: The provision empowers the Magistrate, whenever summons are issued, to dispense with personal attendance and permit appearance through counsel, and the power to direct attendance remains available at any stage under sub-section (2). The application for exemption had been filed before appearance in court, so the view that it was not maintainable after appearance was factually incorrect. Section 317 also shows that the court retains discretion at any stage to dispense with attendance where justified.

Conclusion: The objection based on subsequent appearance was unsustainable, and the application under Section 205 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had made out sufficient grounds for dispensation of personal attendance.

Analysis: The reasons given for refusal did not address the grounds actually pleaded, including distance from the place of trial, residence outside Patna, and the practical burden of repeated appearance. The absence of illness was irrelevant, and the desire for conciliation could not justify rejection on the facts. The Magistrate was required to consider the real grounds raised and exercise discretion on relevant considerations.

Conclusion: Sufficient grounds existed for exemption from personal appearance, and the refusal was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The orders refusing exemption and dismissing the challenge were set aside, and the appellants were granted dispensation from personal appearance, subject to the Magistrate's power to require attendance when necessary.

Ratio Decidendi: An application for dispensation of personal attendance must be decided on the real grounds raised, and the court may grant exemption at any stage where relevant considerations justify it, while retaining power to require attendance later.

---