S.C Mohapatra, J.:— This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagat rejecting the application for dispensing with person-al attendence and being allowed to be represented under Section 205, Cr. P.C Petitioners along with another accused filed an application in this Court for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate which has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19-10-1987 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 823 of 1987.
2. Petitioner No. 1 is a school teacher.
3. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee of a Regional Co-operative Marketing Society. Petitioner No. 3 is a student of a Law College. The fourth accused, a school student, has been allowed to be repre-sented by the impugned order.
4. Representation is a mode of appearance of an accused. It is a matter between the Court and the accused. In prosecu-tions initiated on police report, the Public Prosecution has a right to be heard on the question of bail. So far as a prosecution initiated on complainant, the Magistrate while issuing summons has also power to direct the appearance of an accused through a Lawyer without personally appearing. Thus, complainant has no right to be heard. He can, however, bring to the notice of the Court at any stage the facts of an accused misusing the benefit of a representation for appropriate order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to issue notice to the complainant which would have the effect of delay in disposal of this revision and the prosecution shall be delayed.
5. Petitioners have been accused of offence under sections 323 and 506, I.P.C After hearing Mr. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am satisfied that the personal appearance of Purna Chandra Das (Petitioner No. 2), a teacher of the Primary School and Raghunath Das (Petitioner No. 1), an employee of the Regional Co-operative Marketing Society, Bhanjanagar, can be dispensed with, since their appearance in Court on each date would have the result of their absence from the school and the Co-operative Marketing Society, which is more essential than appearance in the Court when they them-selves do not desire to appear on each date. However, as and when their personal appearance would be necessary, the Court shall give such a direction and on such directions being given, they shall appear personally.
6. So far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned, it is alleged that he is a student of Law College. There is no difficulty for him to appear in Court each day and his appearance shall not affect public in any manner as in case of the other two petitioners, Accordingly, when the trial Court has not exercised its discretion to dispense with his appearance by his personal attendance. 1 am not inclined to interfere with the same. The revision so far as petitioner No. 3 is concerned is not entertained.
7. In the result, this application is allowed in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and the same stands rejected in respect of petitioner No. 3.
8. Application allowed in part.