KANCHAN BAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question to he considered in this revision is whether the presence of the accused, whose personal attendance has been excused, is necessary for explaining to him the charge under Section 251 (A) of the Criminal Procedure code.

(2.) IN the instant case, the Police filed a Challan against Mst. Kanchan Bai under section 324 I. P. C. She was exempted from personal attendance. At the time of framing the charge, it was suggested to the Court that the charge should be read over and explained to her personally and that she should be called in the Court for that purpose. The Court has for that reason ordered Mst. Kanchan Bai to appear in the Court. It seems that the Court thinks that the charge cannot be explained to the counsel of the accused, who has been permitted to appear on her behalf.

(3.) I think that if the personal attendance of a person has been dispensed with and he is permitted to appear by his pleader, then such appearance involves the performance of all acts which the accused is supposed to do during the course of that trial. In this view of the matter, a pleader can answer all questions put to the accused under Section 342 Cr. P. C. and the accused can also plead guilty and not guilty through his counsel.