MAKHANIYA Vs. BADRI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order of the trial Magistrate directing the applicant to appear personally in the Court and the execute a bond.

(2.) NON-applicant No. 1 Badriprasad filed a complaint against the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4 under section 427, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the trial Magistrate. The trial Magistrate issued summonses against the applicant and non-applicants Nos. 2 to 4. On an application submitted on behalf of the applicant she was granted exemption from appearance under section 205, Criminal Procedure Code. Subsequently, the trial Magistrate directed the applicant to appear in Court to furnish a bond for her appearance. Being aggrieved by this order the applicant has come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) IT appears that the provisions of section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not referred to in that case. The said section empowers the Court to require any person, for whose appearance or arrest it is competent to issue summons or warrant, to furnish a bond with or without sureties for his appearance in such Court. The object of this section is to secure the attendance of the witnesses and the accused persons before the Court for the purpose of inquiry or trial. IT is no doubt true that an order under this section can be passed only when the person concerned is present in Court. But a person who has been granted exemption from personal appearance under section 205 may be treated as present for the purposes of this section, because the appearance of his pleader is for all practical purposes to be treated as appearance by him. I am, therefore, of the view that a Magistrate is competent to direct an accused to furnish a bond under section 91 even though he has been granted exemption from appearance under section 205, Criminal Procedure Code.