RAGHUNATH DAS Vs. HARI MOHAN PANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhanjanagar rejecting the application for dispensing with personal attendance and being allowed to be represented under Section 205 Cr. P.C. Petitioners along with another accused filed an application in this Court for quashing the cognizance taken by the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate which has been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 19-10- 1987 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 823 of 1987.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 is a school teacher. Petitioner No. 2 is an employee of a Regional Co-operative Marketing Society. Petitioner No. 3 is a student of a Law College. The fourth accused, a school student, has been allowed to be represented by the impugned order.

(3.) Representation is a mode of a appearance of an accused. It is a matter between the Court and the accused. In prosecutions initiated on police report, the Public Prosecutor has a right to be heard on the question of bail. So far as a prosecution initiated on complaint, the Magistrate while issuing summons has also power to direct the appearance of an accused through a Lawyer without personally appearing. Thus, complainant has no right to be heard. He can, however, bring to the notice of the Court at any stage the facts of an accused misusing the benefit of representation for appropriate order. Accordingly, I am not inclined to issue notice to the complainant which would have the effect of delay in disposal of this revision and the prosecution shall be delayed.