FAUJA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been filed by three accused persons against the order dated December 18, 1986 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sriganganagar for quashing the proceedings and setting aside the order framing the charges against them.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(3.) IN my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted in the circumstances of this case. A perusal of the order-sheets would go to show that even before the alleged letter dated May 8, 1986 was sent by the learned Magistrate, the accused Bachansingh had already put in appearance through his counsel Shri K. C. Jain on July 23, 1981 when he moved an application for dropping the proceedings against him, as would be clear from the order-sheet dated July 23, 1981. When Bachansingh had, thus, appeared before the learned Magistrate through his counsel on July 23, 1981 after the bailable warrant had already been issued, he must be deemed to have been brought before the Court and the court had got the jurisdiction to act under rules 3 and 4. Learned counsel, when faced with this situation, urged that the appearance through the counsel does not mean the bringing of the accused before the court, but I fail to appreciate this contention because appearance through the counsel also amounts to appearance of the accused unless the court refuses to accept the appearance through the counsel. The physical presence of the accused before the court is not absolutely necessary for arming the court with the jurisdiction to proceed under rule 3 and the appearance through the counsel would, in my opinion, be sufficient. When the appearance of Bachansingh before the court on July 23, 1981 is thus established and the letter, said to be issued by the court on May 8, 1986 is of a later date, it cannot be said that the court acted under rule 3 without the accused being brought before him. That being so, the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel in this respect would not at all apply to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and would not be of any avail to him.