SOMANATH MISHRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in G.R. Case No. 423 of 1989 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, first Class, Nimapara, filed this application under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure assailing the order dated 24 -4 -1990 by which the learned Magistrate turned down their prayer to dispense with their personal attendance in the Court and to permit them to be represented by their Advocate under Section 205(1), Code of Criminal Procedure Petitioner No. 2 is the wife of the Petitioner No. 1.

(2.) FROM the impugned order, it appears that the learned Magistrate rejected the application mainly on the ground that the Petitioners had not complied with the direction in the summons requiring them to personally appear in the Court. He referred to the decision of this Court reported in, (1988) 1 D.C.R. 108 (Rudrapanki Dhurjati Devara @ Dhurjati Devara v. Rama Chandra Subudhi) in which the accused persons appeared in the Court and thereafter moved the Court to dispense with their personal attendance in the case. The learned Magistrate further observed:

(3.) IN course of hearing of this case a question arose at what stage the jurisdiction under Section 205(1), Code of Criminal Procedure is available to be exercised by a Magistrate; whether it is only at the stage when he is considering issuing summons or at any subsequent stage. In other words, in a case where summons has been issued to the accused, is it mandatory that he should appear in Court before seeking order of the Magistrate to dispense with his personal attendance.