MUZAFARUDDIN MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference arises out of a petition for bail by one Muzafaruddin Mohamed, Taluqa Supply Officer of Gangavathi against whom information was laid by the Collector of Raichur that he has been responsible, along with one Abdul Hai, for defalcation of public funds by reason of a deficiency of 517 pallas of food-grain from the Government Godown at Gangavathi, of which they were both in charge. On receipt of this information, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Koppal, made the following endorsement:

(2.) IT was stated in the information report of the Collector that the applicant Muzafaruddin left Gangavathi on casual leave for 16th and 17th May, 1952, with permission to avail Sunday the 18th, on the pretext of his mother's serious illness. This fact is admitted by the applicant's Advocate, who states that after his arrival in the city of Hyderabad in connection with his mother's illness he has himself fallen ill and is in the Nursing Home at Hill "view Sanitorium suffering from serious Cardio-Vascular disease and is unable to get up or move about. In this condition, it is said that the applicant presented an application through his Advocate Mr. S. M. Hasan before the Munsif-Magistrate. Gangavathi, who rejected the application on 4. 6. 1952, both on the ground that the accused cannot apply through an Advocate without being personally present and also on the merits. The Sessions Judge, Raichur, also rejected on 21. 6. 1952 a petition presented on behalf of the applicant on the ground that the application for bail presented by an Advocate on behalf of an accused without the accused appearing himself in Court cannot be entertained. When this petition for bail came on for hearing before a Divisional Bench consisting of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Dr. Siadat Ali Khan J. it was urged on behalf of the State before them:

(3.) THE Bench referred these questions to the Pull Bench, in view of certain observations of a Pull Bench judgment in Government v. Shankar 21 Deccan LR 94 (A), which appears to lend support to the argument of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the accused need not personally appear in order to apply for bail, but can do so through his pleader.