( 1 ) SINCE common questions of law and fact are involved and as the parties are the same, these two revision cases can be disposed of together.

( 2 ) THE revision petitioner seeks to assail the impugned orders both dated 1. 4. 2002 passed by the learned III metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in crl. M. P. 719 of 2002 in C. C. No. 1309 of 2001 and in Crl. M. P. No. 717 of 2002 in c. C. No. 1308 of 2002 respectively.

( 3 ) THE first respondent herein is the complainant who filed the complaint against the revision petitioner who is a Doctor practising at Jeddah in Saudi Arabia. In view of his pre-occupation with his profession at Jeddah, he appointed his brother-Mr. Syed Sikindar Ali as his agent to appear on his behalf and to defend him in all, civil, criminal, and revenue Courts by executing a General Power of Attorney in his favour. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( the Code for brevity) seeking to dispense with his personal attendance in the Court and to permit him to be represented by his brother and General power of Attorney Holder-the said Syed sikindar Ali. According to the petitioner, the complaints filed against him are all false, calculated to obtain wrongful gain, and to harass the petitioner. He further claims that although he did not receive any summons from the Court in these criminal cases, having come to know that the Court issued NBWs against him, he filed these petitions, as aforesaid.

( 4 ) THE first respondent-complainant resisted those petitions by filing counters mentioning inter alia that there has been no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure to appoint a Power of Attorney to represent the accused; and that the alleged Power of Attorney is not a pleader as defined under Section 2 (q) of the Code and since it has not been mentioned in the petitions that the said Power of Attorney is acquainted with the Court procedure and law and is able to assist the Court and defend the accused; and that he (Power of Attorney Holder) does not qualify himself to be appointed under Section 205 of the code. It is further pleaded that there cannot be separately an Advocate to defend the accused and a person to represent him before the Court.

( 5 ) AFTER having heard on either side, under the impugned orders, the learned iii Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed those petitions. As aforesaid, the revision petitioner is assailing those orders in these revision cases.

( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY, the revision petitioner has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his brother-Mr. Syedsikindar ali which has been annexed with the petitions. The said Syed Sikindar AH has been authorised inter alia in the General power of Attorney to appear or defend the revision petitioner in C. C. Nos. 1308/2001, 1309/2001 and 2234/2001 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, filed by the respondent herein and to file necessary cases, appeals, revisions, reviews, objections, verified petitions, to give statements on oath, to answer questions under Section 313 and other provisions of the Code and to do all necessary things in the above cases and in other matters. Clause (a) of the conditions incorporated in the said General Power of Attorney authorised the brother of the revision petitioner to do every act on behalf of the revision petitioner in the said criminal cases. The revision petitioner has also undertaken inter alia in his petition to appear before the court as and when his personal attendance is necessary. In a way, it is obvious that the petitioner seeks his personal attendance to be dispensed with before the Court and permit him to appear through his brother who incidentally is the General Power of attorney Holder of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner obviously, therefore, wants to appear through a proxy in criminal cases. It may be further mentioned that he engaged an Advocate to defend himself in these criminal cases