MST. SARBATI & ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is preferred against the order dated 14th March, '89, by which, the Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, has dismissed the application of the petitioners for exemption from personal attendance in the court.

(2.) A challan was filed against the petitioners and three others u/ss. 323, 147, 324, 427 & 452, IPC. The petitioners were represented by their counsel, and an application u/s. 205, Cr. P.C., read with S. 317, Crimial P.C. was filed, which was rejected vide the impugned order.

(3.) I have gone through the order of the learned Magistrate, which gives no reasons for dismissing the application. The law is very clear. If the accused persons are duly represented by their counsel, their personal attendance should not be insisted by the court, especially in cases of women accused. Petitioner Sarbati is about 26 years of age and Mst. Kabuli 71 years. The learned counsel for the petitioners also says that he would not dispute the identity of these two petitioners. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City, insisting personal attendance of the petitioners, is not a justified order. They are properly represented by their counsel. Even the law permits that a counsel can give statement on behalf of the accused u/s. 313, Cr. P.C.