ISWAR DAS Vs. BHAGWAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of a Bench of special Magistrates of Meerut requiring that both the accused should appear in person to make an explanation under Section 342, Cr.P.C., Prior to the order the attendance of the accused had been excused under Section 205, Cr.P.C. Section 205(2) states: But the Magistrate inquiring into or trying the case may, in his discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of the accused, and if necessary, enforce such attendance in manner herein before provided.

(2.) Sec. 342 lays down: For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.

(3.) The language used is compulsory as it is stated that the Court shall question him. Learned Counsel has argued that instead of questioning the accused it is open to the Court to question his advocate. Learned Counsel referred for this proposition firstly to the ruling reported in Emperor V/s. Dorabsha Bomanji . That ruling lays down that in a summons case a pleader may make a statement under Secs.242 and 243 before the trial begins on behalf of an accused person. That is an entirely different matter from the statement under Section 342, Cr.P.C. When an accused person appears before the Court in a summons case he shall be asked whether he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. The mere statement under that section is entirely different from the statement under Section 342 which is to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused. The present case is a warrant case and therefore the procedure of a summons case has no bearing. The next ruling on which learned Counsel relied was the ruling of a Single Judge reported in Maung Po Nyein V/s. Haka Singh A.I.R. 1927 Rang. 73. In that case two purdah ladies were being tried before a Magistrate and the learned Judge stated: I agree with the learned District Magistrate. The women could be permitted to answer the examination through their pleader. Section 342 has to my mind been enacted to safeguard the interests of accused persons. The legislature contemplates that they should always get an opportunity of explaining any circumstances that may appear against them....