Judgment : Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 11 of 2024. I. F ACTUAL M ATRIX OF THE C ASE 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: i. An FIR was registered by Koraput Vigilance, being P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012, for offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. ii. Pursuant thereto, Charge Sheet No. 15 of 2018 dated 27.07.2018 was submitted before the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Jeypore, Koraput. iii. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, by registering ECIR No. ECIR/BBSZO/14/2020 dated 31.03.2020. iv. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, before the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. v. Upon filing of the complaint, the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, took cognizance of the offence and issued summons in Form No. 1 to the accused persons, including the present petitioner, directing their appearance. vi. In pursuance of the summons so issued, accused nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the learned Special Judge and furnished bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 11.12.2024. vii. The petitioner, Smt. Kuntala Panda, who was arrayed as accused no. 3, filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, seeking exemption from personal appearance on the grounds of her advanced age, medical condition, and the distance between her place of residence and the court at Bhubaneswar, and undertook to appear before the court below as and when required. viii. The learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, by order dated 27.01.2025, rejected the application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and directed the petitioner to appear before the court on 12.03.2025.Subsequently, the date of appearance was fixed on 29.10.2025. ix. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. ix. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. II. S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE P ETITIONER 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. The petitioner submitted that the order rejecting the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, is illegal, arbitrary, and suffers from non-application of judicial mind, inasmuch as the old age and illness of the petitioner were not duly considered, and for the said reasons, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. ii. It was submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding person who has cooperated with both the investigating authorities and has appeared before them as and when required, without any complaint. iii. It was further submitted that Section 205(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, envisages that the Magistrate issuing summons may, if he sees reason to do so, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit appearance through counsel, and that sub-section (2) thereof empowers the Magistrate, at any stage of the proceedings, to direct the personal attendance of the accused if necessary. It was contended that, in the present case, the learned Magistrate rejected the application solely on the ground that the offence is serious in nature and that physical presence of the accused is required for trial, which finding, according to the petitioner, is not sustainable in law having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. iv. It was submitted that the entire case is based on documentary evidence and that identification of the petitioner is not necessary during trial, and that in terms of the proviso to Section 205(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate is empowered to direct the personal attendance of the petitioner at any stage of the trial if necessary, and therefore there is no legal impediment in dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner. v. It was submitted that the power under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised liberally, particularly in cases involving elderly and infirm persons, where the identity of the accused is not in dispute. vi. v. It was submitted that the power under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is discretionary in nature and is required to be exercised liberally, particularly in cases involving elderly and infirm persons, where the identity of the accused is not in dispute. vi. It was submitted that the personal appearance of an accused cannot be strictly directed and that the Magistrate is empowered to dispense with such personal appearance, the only requirement being an undertaking by the accused not to dispute identity and to have no objection to recording of evidence in her absence. vii. It was submitted that the impugned order does not disclose any reasons as to why the benefit of Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was not extended to the petitioner, and that although the order reflects that there was no dispute with regard to the illness of the petitioner, the application was nonetheless rejected without due application of judicial mind. viii. It was submitted that the petitioner is an elderly and ailing widow who has undertaken to appear before the court below as and when required, and that the rejection of the application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has resulted in prejudice to the petitioner. It was accordingly prayed that the impugned order dated 27.01.2025 be quashed and that the petitioner’s personal appearance be dispensed with, permitting her to be represented through counsel. III.S UBMISSIONS O N B EHALF O F T HE O PPOSITE P ARTY 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: i. It was submitted that the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar Zonal Office , 2024) 7 SCC 61 held that when an accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to summons issued on a complaint under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, such accused shall not be treated as being in custody and is not required to apply for bail. However, the Special Court is empowered to direct the accused to furnish bonds in terms of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has clarified that the grant of exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. is not automatic, and that such exemption may be granted only upon sufficient cause being shown, the exercise of such power being discretionary in nature. ii. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, pursuant to the summons issued by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, the petitioner appeared before the Court on 15.01.2025 and filed her hazira. Instead of furnishing bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. or placing an undertaking on record, the petitioner directly sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. It was therefore contended that the learned Special Judge committed no illegality in rejecting the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., while granting liberty to the petitioner to renew her prayer after furnishing bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and placing an appropriate undertaking before the Court. iii. It was submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order reflects a proper exercise of judicial discretion and does not warrant interference, and accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. IV. F INDINGS O F T HE S PECIAL J UDGE (CBI-I), B HUBANESWAR 5. The learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, considered the application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds.The submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner regarding her age, medical condition, distance of residence, documentary nature of the case, and absence of apprehension of tampering with evidence were noted. 6. The learned Special Judge also took note of the allegations against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, including the alleged role attributed to her in assisting the main accused in acquisition of disproportionate assets and unexplained financial transactions. 7. On perusal of the medical documents, it was recorded that the petitioner is aged about 72 years and is suffering from osteoporosis and other age-related ailments. 8. 7. On perusal of the medical documents, it was recorded that the petitioner is aged about 72 years and is suffering from osteoporosis and other age-related ailments. 8. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) the learned Special Judge observed that while exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. may be granted on sufficient cause being shown, the accused is required to first appear and furnish bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge was of the view that the petitioner ought to appear and furnish bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and thereafter move an application under Section 205 Cr.P.C., and on such reasoning, rejected the application while granting liberty to file a fresh application after compliance with the said requirement. V. C OURT ’ S R EASONING AND A NALYSIS 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. The issue that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the learned Special Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the discretion vested under the said provision has been exercised in accordance with law. 12. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it would be apposite tooutline the position governing the exercise of power under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly in proceedings arising out of a complaint filed under Section 44 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 13. Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides that 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 the accused to appear by a pleader. Sub-section (2) of Section 205 preserves the discretion of the Court to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings. The provision is replicated hereinunder for reference: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.— (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. The provision is replicated hereinunder for reference: “205. Magistrate may dispense with personal attendance of accused.— (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.” 14. The scope of Section 205 Cr.P.C. has been considered by the Supreme Court in Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401 , where it was observed as hereinunder: “14. The normal rule is that the evidence shall be taken in the presence of the accused. However, even in the absence of the accused such evidence can be taken but then his counsel must be present in the court, provided he has been granted exemption from attending the court. The concern of the criminal court should primarily be the administration of criminal justice. For that purpose the proceedings of the court in the case should register progress. Presence of the accused in the court is not for marking his attendance just for the sake of seeing him in the court. It is to enable the court to proceed with the trial. If the progress of the trial can be achieved even in the absence of the accused the court can certainly take into account the magnitude of the sufferings which a particular accused person may have to bear with in order to make himself present in the court in that particular case. .. 19. The position, therefore, boils down to this: it is within the powers of a Magistrate and in his judicial discretion to dispense with the personal appearance of an accused either throughout or at any particular stage of such proceedings in a summons case, if the Magistrate finds that insistence of his personal presence would itself inflict enormous suffering or tribulations on him, and the comparative advantage would be less. Such discretion need be exercised only in rare instances where due to the far distance at which the accused resides or carries on business or on account of any physical or other good reasons the Magistrate feels that dispensing with the personal attendance of the accused would only be in the interests of justice. However, the Magistrate who grants such benefit to the accused must take the precautions enumerated above, as a matter of course. We may reiterate that when an accused makes an application to a Magistrate through his duly authorised counsel praying for affording the benefit of his personal presence being dispensed with the Magistrate can consider all aspects and pass appropriate orders thereon before proceeding further. 15. The aforesaid principles were reiterated and applied by the Supreme Court in Puneet Dalmia v. Central Bureau of Investigation . (2020) 12 SCC 695 . 16. The exercise of such discretion, however, is not unfettered. In Lily Begum v. Joy Chandra Nagbanshi (1994) 2 SCC 39 . it was observed that where serious allegations are made against an accused, the Court must exercise caution in granting exemption from personal appearance, as it would lead people into losing their confidence in the administration of justice. 17. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, it is evident from the material placed on record that the petitioner is aged about 72 years and is suffering from osteoporosis of both knees and other age-related ailments. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner appeared before the court below pursuant to summons and sought exemption from personal appearance, while undertaking to appear before the Court as and when so directed. 18. The learned Special Judge has also taken note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the seriousness of the offence alleged. 19. The nature and gravity of the allegations constitute a relevant consideration while examining an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, the seriousness of the allegations, by itself, cannot be treated as determinative. The statutory framework of Section 205 Cr.P.C. does not exclude its application merely on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and expressly preserves the power of the Court to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, should the interests of justice so require. 20. The statutory framework of Section 205 Cr.P.C. does not exclude its application merely on the ground of the seriousness of the offence and expressly preserves the power of the Court to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, should the interests of justice so require. 20. Further, the position concerning proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, stands clarified by the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) . The Supreme Court held that once a complaint is filed under Section 44(1)(b) of the PMLA, the proceedings before the Special Court are governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, save and except to the extent they are inconsistent with the PMLA. It was further held that when an accused appears before the Special Court pursuant to summons issued on such complaint, the accused is not to be treated as being in custody and is not required to apply for bail. It was observed that the Special Court is empowered to require the accused to furnish bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to secure appearance, and also that, on sufficient cause being shown, the Special Court may grant exemption from personal appearance by exercising power under Section 205 Cr.P.C. 21. At this juncture, it is imperative to note that the powers exercisable by the Special Court under Sections 88 and 205 Cr.P.C. are discretionary in nature and are required to be exercised having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. 22. In the present case, the petitioner had already appeared before the learned Special Judge pursuant to summons. Her advanced age, medical condition, and the distance of her residence from the court at Bhubaneswar are not in dispute and have, in fact, been acknowledged in the impugned order itself. 23. The reasoning adopted by the learned Special Judge for rejecting the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. rests primarily on the ground that the petitioner was required to first furnish bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. before her application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. could be considered. While Tarsem Lal (supra) recognises the power of the Special Court to direct furnishing of bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to secure appearance, the exercise of such power is discretionary in nature and is intended to ensure the presence of the accused during the course of proceedings. 24. While Tarsem Lal (supra) recognises the power of the Special Court to direct furnishing of bonds under Section 88 Cr.P.C. to secure appearance, the exercise of such power is discretionary in nature and is intended to ensure the presence of the accused during the course of proceedings. 24. In the facts of the present case, where the petitioner had already appeared pursuant to summons, had placed on record her medical condition, and had undertaken to appear before the Court as and when directed, the rejection of the application under Section 205 Cr.P.C. solely on the aforesaid ground without consideration of the petitioner’s age, medical condition and undertaking, does not reflect a proper balancing of the relevant considerations governing the exercise of discretion under the said provision. 25. Any apprehension that dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioner would prejudice the conduct of the trial is sufficiently addressed by sub-section (2) of Section 205 Cr.P.C., which preserves the authority of the trial court to direct the personal attendance of the accused at any stage of the proceedings, should the circumstances so warrant. 26. While the allegations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, are undoubtedly serious in nature, the gravity of the offence, by itself, cannot operate as an absolute bar to the grant of exemption from personal appearance, particularly where sufficient cause has been shown. 27. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the discretion vested under Section 205 Cr.P.C. has not been exercised in its proper perspective by the learned Special Judge, inasmuch as the application has been rejected without adequately weighing the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner against the safeguards available under law. VI. C ONCLUSION 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI-I), Bhubaneswar, in Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 11 of 2024 is hereby set aside. 29. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is allowed, subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioner shall be represented by counsel on all dates fixed by the learned Special Judge and shall not dispute her identity at any stage of the proceedings; ii. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge as and when specifically directed by the Court; iii. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Special Judge as and when specifically directed by the Court; iii. The learned Special Judge shall remain at liberty to impose appropriate conditions, including the furnishing of bonds under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if deemed necessary to secure the presence of the petitioner. He may also secure his presence through virtual mode as per the Video Conferencing Rules of this Court. 30. It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as curtailing the powers of the learned Special Judge under Section 205(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or any other provision of law, and the learned Special Judge shall be free to direct the personal appearance of the petitioner at any stage of the proceedings, if the interests of justice so require. 31. The petition is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms. 32. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.