IMPORTANT POINT
Court has discretionary power to exempt personal attendance of accused even in warrant cases and to have the plea of counsel recorded for and on behalf of accused.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 205, 317 and 353(6) Exemption from personal appearance of accused - Whether Counsel could be allowed to answer the charge framed by Court in warrant trial case? - Respondents were summoned in private complaint for offence under Section 498-A/34, I.P.C. and trial Court permitted Counsel to plead not guilty to the charge framed against accused - Revision - Discretion of Court to be exercised in judicial manner considering tile nature and gravity of offences and consequences of accepting the plea - Where personal attendance is exempted, plea of counsel could be recorded Impugned order suffered no infirmity or illegality.
       Held: A consideration of the above provisions would reveal that in all cases where exemption from the personal attendance is granted and where the plea is one of 'not guilty' the Court has only to allow the Counsel to plea 'not guilty' for the accused, as such a plea is only of a procedural nature. In cases where the personal attendance of the accused is exempted under Section 205, Cr. P.C. and it is a summons case, the Court has to record the plea of the Counsel for and on behalf of the accused even if the plea is one of 'guilty'. But in warrant cases the Court has to exercise its discretion in a judicial manner considering the nature and gravity of offences and the consequence of accepting the plea. Thus the Court has the discretionary power to exempt the personal appearance of the accused even in warrant cases and to have the plea of the Counsel recorded for and on behalf of the accused, when he is specifically authorised for the purpose and in appropriate cases. If after considering all the aspects of the case, the Court holds that the personal attendance of the accused is not essential, the Court can dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and the plea of the Counsel can be recorded and on the basis of such plea, the Court can either convict the accused or proceed to have the trial. In the present case the Counsel had applied for permitting him to make a plea of 'not guilt' for the accused and the Court allowed the above application. So far as the request is one for making a plea of ' not guilty', the Court has only to allow it and the Court below is fully justified in allowing the application. There is no reason for interfering with the above order of the Court below and as such this Crl. M.C. has only to be dismissed.
       (Para 11 and 12)
       Result: Revision dismissed.

JUDGMENT

R. Rajendra Babu, J. - Whether the Counsel can be allowed to answer the charge framed by the Court and make the plea of guilty or not guilty for and on behalf of the accused in warrant cases is the question for consideration.

2. The complainant in C.C. 330/ 95 before the Judl. I Class Magistrate's Court, Payyoli, filed this petition to quash the order allowing the Counsel for the 1st respondent (the 1st accused) to answer the charge framed by the Court through the Counsel. The petitioner filed the complaint C.C. 330/95 against the 1st respondent her husband and against the 2nd respondent (the brother of 1st respondent) alleging the commission of offence under Section 498A read with Section 34. IPC. The respondents appeared before the Court and they were released on bail. The 1st respondent was working abroad and he surrendered his passport before the Court below. Later, he filed a petition for the release of his passport and the Court below as per its order dated 21-4-1998 ordered for the release of the passport of the 1st respondent executing bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties. Later the 1st respondent had gone abroad. The 2nd respondent who was released on bail also had gone abroad and absconded. While so, the 1st respondent filed Crl. M.P. 2504/98 under Section 205(1), Cr. P.C. to permit him to answer the charge and to plead "not guilty" through his Counsel. The Court below allowed the above petition. The above order is under challenge.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the 1st respondent.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below had gone wrong in permitting the Counsel for the 1st accused to answer the charge and to plead for the accused as the Magistrate has no discretion to permit the Counsel to answer the charge in a warrant case even though such discretion can be exercised in summons cases. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent argued that the Court has the discretion to record the plea of the accused through his Counsel even in warrant cases and the order permitting the Counsel to answer the charge against the accused was proper and in accordance with law and it is not liable to be interfered.

5. Section 205. Cr. P.C. authorises the Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of accused. Section 205 reads:

"Magistrate may dispense with. personal attendance of accused - (1) Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons he may if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his Pleader.

(2) 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 the manner hereinbefore provided. "

Even at the time of the issue of the summons the Court can dispense with the personal appearance of the accused in view of the Section 205. Cr. P.C. In Roman Nair v. State of Kerala1 a Single Judge of this Court held that the exemption from personal appearance can be granted even after the issue of summons to the accused on an application by the accused.

6. Section 317. Cr. P.C. deals with the enquiries and trials being held in the absence of the accused. It reads:

"Provision for inquiries and trial being held in the absence of accused "in certain cases (1) At any stage of an inquiry or

1. 1999 (3) KLT 714.

trial under this Code if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied for reasons to be recorded that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice or that the accused persistently disturbs the proceedings in Court the Judge or Magistrate may if the accused is represented by a Pleader dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence and may at any subsequent stage of the proceedings direct the personal attendance of such accused

(2) If the accused in any such case is not represented by a Plea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

IMPORTANT POINTCourt has discretionary power to exempt personal attendance of accused even in warrant cases and to have the plea of counsel recorded for and on behalf of accused.

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Court has discretionary power to exempt personal attendance of accused even in warrant cases and to have the plea of counsel recorded for and on behalf of accused.