Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused
Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused. Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his pleader.
(2) But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and, if necessary, enforce such attendance in the manner hereinbefore provided.
Section 205, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 228 Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Rajeswar Tiwari vs Nanda Kishore Roy
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an employer has made statutory deductions from an employee's salary in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act (Sections 192-206) and has properly deposited the deducted amounts to the credit of the employee or Central Government as required, allegations of illegal deduction do not disclose a case for criminal prosecution under Sections 406 or 120B IPC. Such disputes are essentially civil in nature and must be resolved through appropriate civil, administrative, or income tax authority channels, not through criminal prosecution. The High Court has an obligation under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of criminal process by quashing proceedings that convert civil disputes into criminal cases, particularly when statutory obligations have been performed and the dispute concerns the legitimacy or correctness of those actions rather than their performance itself.
On this section: Section 205 allows an accused to apply for withdrawal of prosecution. The appellants made such an application which was rejected, leading to issuance of arrest warrant.
-
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases and should generally be conducted personally, procedural flexibility may be introduced in special exigencies where personal attendance causes genuine hardship involving substantial expense or physical incapacity, provided the court has satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the hardship. However, when omission to put incriminating materials to an accused has in fact occurred at trial, the trial court must ordinarily eschew such materials from its consideration unless the accused is afforded opportunity to explain them, either during trial or by appellate-stage explanation. In this case, because the foundation of the prosecution case (voluntary confessions to Customs authorities) was not put to the accused at all, their acquittal could not be set aside.
On this section: These sections address dispensing with personal attendance of the accused, which the court discussed in the context of whether personal presence can also be dispensed with for examination purposes in certain circumstances.
-
State of Punjab vs Hari Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an accused is charged with possession of narcotic articles under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, conscious possession - meaning awareness of the nature of the article coupled with a deliberate or intended state of mind - is an essential legal requirement. In the absence of questioning the accused under Section 313 CrPC regarding this vital element of the prosecution case, the trial suffers from a serious procedural infirmity that cannot be cured by circumstantial evidence of physical possession alone, and the conviction must be set aside as violating the fundamental principles of natural justice and fair trial.
On this section: Section 205 allows court to dispense with personal attendance of accused in certain cases. Court discussed this in context of when Section 313 examination might be dispensed with.
-
Ms Akshaya Infrastructure and 1 vs M/s Karran Enterprises and Enfrastructures
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a summons case, unless the personal attendance of the accused has been formally dispensed with under Section 205 of CrPC, the Court must examine the accused under Section 313(1)(b) to allow them to explain incriminating evidence; failure to do so vitiates the trial.
On this section: Dispensing with personal attendance of the accused.
-
Pratap Singh Gaekwad vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Rejection of an application for exemption from personal appearance in criminal proceedings, by no stretch of imagination, can come within the ambit of either absconding, not obeying summons, or non-appearance despite proof of due service of summons as contemplated by Sections 87 and 89 CrPC. Therefore, rejection of such an application cannot be grounds for issuing warrants of arrest, forfeiting personal bonds, forfeiting surety bonds, or issuing notice to sureties. The only proper course when exemption is rejected is to direct the accused to appear on the next date or to issue summons for appearance under Section 205 CrPC. Before forfeiting any bond under Section 446 CrPC, the court must satisfy itself about proof of breach of bond conditions and must record reasons of such proof in writing.
On this section: Establishes that Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused and permit appearance by pleader; if exemption is rejected, only course is to direct appearance or issue summons, not warrant or bond forfeiture
-
Dr. Anbumani Ramadoss vs Central Bureau of Investigation
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In view of current judicial policy on hybrid hearings, an accused residing far from the court is entitled to appear virtually provided they do not dispute identity and their counsel is physically present.
On this section: Magistrate's power to dispense with personal attendance.
-
Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a corporation is an accused person in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and it appoints an authorized representative as permitted under Section 305 CrPC, the District Consumer Forum cannot insist on the personal appearance of the Managing Director or any other specific officer. The statutory requirement that the accused shall be examined is satisfied by the examination of the authorized representative. The District Forum is bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and cannot impose additional requirements beyond what the statute permits.
On this section: Cited by the District Forum but found to be inapplicable. The Court noted that the District Forum's reliance on this section was misplaced as it does not override Section 305 CrPC.
-
Pratap Singh Gaekwad vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Rejection of an application seeking exemption from personal appearance due to some contingency cannot, by any stretch of imagination, come within the ambit of either absconding or not obeying the summons or non-appearance despite proof of due service of summons or 'non-appearance' as contemplated by Section 89 CrPC, nor such 'non-appearance' is a breach of condition of the bond either of a person who is on bail or of a surety that such a person shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the bond. Therefore, no court shall forfeit personal bond or surety bond or issue warrant of arrest merely because an exemption application is rejected.
On this section: Magistrate's power to dispense with personal attendance of accused and permit appearance by pleader; if exemption is rejected, only course is to direct appearance or issue summons, not warrant
-
Pratap Singh Gaekwad vs State of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Rejection of an application for exemption from personal appearance due to some contingency cannot, by any stretch of imagination, come within the ambit of either absconding or not obeying summons or non-appearance despite proof of due service of summons or 'non-appearance' as contemplated by Section 89 CrPC, nor can such 'non-appearance' be a breach of condition of the bond either of a person on bail or of a surety. Therefore, no court shall forfeit personal bond or surety bond or issue non-bailable warrants merely because an exemption application is rejected. The only permissible course is to direct the accused to appear or issue summons.
On this section: Court's power to dispense with personal attendance of accused and permit appearance through pleader. Court can direct personal attendance at its discretion but rejection of exemption does not automatically lead to warrant or bond forfeiture.
-
Om Parkash Bali vs State Th. I/c Crime Branch
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cross-criminal cases involving the same subject matter, both cases can proceed simultaneously before the same court. The pendency of one case does not prevent framing of charges or proceeding in the other case. An accused cannot rely on Section 476 CrPC or Section 195 CrPC to prevent prosecution for forgery merely because the same cheque has been tendered as evidence in a parallel complaint filed by the accused. Trial courts must not order calling of record of cases without stating reasons and legal provisions, as such orders suffer from non-application of mind and can be quashed by the High Court.
On this section: Commitment of cases exclusively triable by Court of Session. Referenced in context of normal procedure for committing cases to Sessions Judge.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 205
What have the courts held on Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Rajeswar Tiwari vs Nanda Kishore Roy (19 Aug 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Section 205 allows an accused to apply for withdrawal of prosecution. The appellants made such an application which was rejected, leading to issuance of arrest warrant. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 3 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2003 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 205, section 205 CRPC, section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Rajeswar Tiwari vs Nanda Kishore Roy (19 Aug 2010).
What should I read with Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 228 (Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 205, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.