MT. KAMAL DEBI AND ORS. Vs. PANNALAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS was a Rule issued on the application of four persons Mt. Kamal Debi and three other ladies who applied for quashing a criminal proceeding against them i.e., G.R. case No. 324/1950 of the Magistrate's Court at Jorhat and objected to the order of the learned Magistrate refusing the ladies permission to appear in the case through pleaders.

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 16.5.1951 discharging the Rule but gave the petitioners a chance to renew their application for being exempted from personal appearance in Court. The relevant portion of the judgment runs as follows:

(3.) IT has been held by the Allahabad High Court by a Division Bench in Aditya Prasad v. Jogendra Nath that Section 205, Criminal P.C. does not deal with the jurisdiction of a Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused person after a summons; or warrant has been served on the accused, The section only lays down a discretion to the Magistrate at the time of issuing summons as to whether the accused should appear in person or should be permitted to appeal through a pleader, On a reference to Section 204, Criminal P.C. the matter becomes very clear. It provides that in a certain class of cases summons has to be issued in the first instance to all the accused but if the case appears to be one in which according to the fourth column of the Second Schedule (Cr.P.C.) a warrant should issue in the first instance, the Magistrate may issue a warrant or if he thinks fit, a summonsfor causing the accused to be brought or to appear at a certain time before such Magistrate or some other Magistrate having jurisdiction.