ORDER

Singh, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for non-petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-petitioner No. 1. Non-petitioner No.7 does not appear to have been served, because as per office report, his summon has not been received after service. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor submits that it is not necessary to serve notice on non-petitioner No.7, because the process has not been issued against him by the learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 204 Cr. P. C. and it is well established that unless process has issued under Section 204 Cr.P.C. against any person, he has no right to be represented before a Court. The proviso given in Section 398 Cr.P.C. applies to those persons, who have been discharged of an offence by the lower Court. This proviso has no application to the cases of those persons, who were neither arrested by the police nor against whom any process were issued by the Court under Section 204 Cr.P.C.

2. For the disposal of this petition, it is not necessary to serve notice on the non-petitioner No.7.

3. The facts of the case may be briefly sum