NOORJAHAN Vs. T T MOIDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the counsel can be allowed to answer the charge framed by the Court and make the plea of guilty or not guilty for and on behalf of the accused in warrant cases is the question for consideration.

(2.) The complainant in C.C. 330/95 before the Judl. I Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli, filed this petition to quash the order allowing the counsel for the 1st respondent (the 1st accused) to answer the charge framed by the Court through the counsel. The petitioner filed the complaint C.C. 330/95 against the 1st respondent, her husband and against the 2nd respondent (the brother of 1st respondent) alleging the commission of offence under S.498A r/w. S.34 IPC. The respondents appeared before Court and they were released on bail. The 1st respondent was working abroad and he surrendered his passport before the Court below. Later, he filed a petition for the release of his passport and the court below as per its order dated 21.4.1998 ordered for the release of the passport on the 1st respondent executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties. Later the 1st respondent had gone abroad. The 2nd respondent, who was released on bail, also had gone abroad and absconded. While so, the 1st respondent filed Crl. M. P. 2504/98 under S.205(1) Cr.P.C. to permit him to answer the charge and to plead "not guilty" through his counsel. The Court below allowed the above petition. The above order is under challenge.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the 1st respondent.