STATE OF KERALA Vs. HASSANAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case have been set out in full in the order of reference by the District Magistrate and it is unnecessary to restate them. The two questions that arise for decision are whether the order for the execution of the bond from Usman who is not an accused but only the manager of the accused and its subsequent forfeiture is illegal and has to be quashed and secondly whether any question of contempt of court arises in this matter.

(2.) As soon as cognizance is taken of a case the Magistrate has to issue summons for the attendance of the accused. The accused need not necessarily appear in person. Under Section 205 Cr. P. C., a Magistrate issuing summons may if he sees reasons to do so dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his 'pleader'. But the accused must first be served with summons and he must apply for permission to exempt his personal appearance. It may be, it is open to an accused to appoint his 'manager' to appear in his stead, and plead and do any other acts on his behalf in the case against him, and it may equally be open to the court to permit the manager to represent the accused.

(3.) The Bombay High Court in Dorabshah Bomanji Dubash v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Bom 218 has held that the estate manager can be said to be 'a pleader' within the meaning of the definition in Clause (r) of Section 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Whatever that may be, there should be clearly on record something to show that the person who represents the accused has been duly appointed by him and to show that the court has given requisite permission for his appearance in place of the accused.