BEGUM FEJUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case comes on a reference made-by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his report dated 22-4-1954.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to it arc that on 28-6-1953 one Govind Narain made a report to the Sub- Inspector Police, Division B Jodhpur that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 9001 to Sahebjada Fejmohamad of Jodhpur and Faijmohamad had therefore mortgaged his house with him for the said amount. He ad also executed a rentnote in favour of the complainant. On 13-1-40 the complainant got decree for possession of the house and also for arrears of rent. On 17-4-53 he was put in possession of the house through the bailiff of the Court. It was alleged by him that one Mt. Begum Fezun widow of Taj Moharhed Khan and Noor Mohamad Khan made a criminal trespass into his house and took possession of certain portion thereof and therefore, it was prayed that they should be dealt with for committing offences Under Sections 447, 448 and 379, IPC The police investigated into the matter and challaned Mst. Begum Fezun Bibi and Noor Mohamad Under Section 448, IPC

(3.) BEFORE the commencement of enquiry an application was presented by Mt. Begum Fejun to dispense with her personal attendance in the Court Under Section 205, Criminal P. C. on the ground that she was old and also a pardanashin lady. On 20-7-1953 that application was granted and she was allowed to appear by a pleader. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was recorded. The Court wanted to examine the accused Under Section 342, Criminal P. C. On 26-2-1954 her advocate was therefore ordered to produce her in the Court on the next date of hearing. Against this order the accused presented an application in revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. It was urged there that the case against the accused was a very petty one, that it was in the nature of a civil suit and a criminal case was started just to dispossess her from the property. It was also urged that she was continuing in possession of that property for a number of years and she was never dispossessed by the Court bailiff. It was further contended that in a case like this her advocate could be examined on her behalf Under Section 342, Criminal P. C. and that a charge could also be framed in the same manner. It was prayed that in such a case even if the accused was convicted there could only be a punishment of fine and therefore, she should be exempted Under Section 205, Criminal P. C. right upto the conclusion of the trial. These arguments have found favour with the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, he has reported the case with the recommendation that the accused Mt. Begum Fejun should be allowed to appear by her pleader right upto the conclusion of the trial.