: Representation by a lawyer is permissible for answering accusations under Sec.251 and Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This is an application for quashing the order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in P.S. Case No. 90 of 2004, by which he has rejected the petition dated 6.2.2006 for allowing the prayer to be represented through lawyer to reply the accusation under Sec.251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

3. The petitioner has been made accused of certain alleged violations of the directions of authorities for non-cognizable offences under Sections 425, 426, 227 of the I.P C. and Sec.133 of the Cr.PC.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.4.2004 the police party found some flags and election propaganda papers, which are prohibited to be displayed at the relevant period, having been kept at places such as electric polls and telephone polls at the time of arrival of the petitioner who was Member of Parliament at the relevant time.

5. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur vide order dated 8.4.2004 took cognizance on the basis of Shahkund RS. Sanha No. 89 dated 5.4.2004 against the petitioner under Sections 425, 426 and 427 of the I.P.C. and Sec.133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly, summons were issued for appearance of the petitioner.

6. The petitioner filed an application under Sec.205 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of permanent representation through his counsel, which was allowed on 16.4.2005 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur with condition that the petitioner shall remain physically present on the date of explanation of substance of accusation under Sec.251 of the Cr.PC, recording of statement under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. and also on the date of judgment.

7. On 6.2.2006 an application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to reply the accusation u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C. by his counsel appearing in the case on the ground that the petitioner is now Deputy Chief Minister of the State and busiest person and engaged in administrative work of the State and hence unable to attend the court at that stage.

8. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said petition dated 6.2.2006 without considering the present situation and circumstances of the petitioner only on the ground that since predecessor C.J.M. while allowing the petition u/s 205 of the Cr.P.C. had put condition that at the time of explaining accusation, recording of statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C. and on the date of judgment, the petitioner shall remain physically present in court and hence allowing the present petition would amount to review or revision of the earlier order dated 16.4.2005.

9. In view of the present position and situation, the impugned order is said to be not warranted under law and as such a prayer has been made to quash the aforesaid order dated 15.2.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur in PS. Case No. 90 of 2004.

10. In this connection the settled law in respect of Sections 313 and 251 of the Cr.P.C., with reference to presence of the petitioner has been under-scored on behalf of the petitioner. In this connection the decision in the case of Shantunu Das & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Anr., reported in 2000(3) P.L.J.R. page 134 at page 135 has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein and whereunder, it was held that Sec.251 of the Cr.P.C. merely requires answer to the accusation as to whether accused pleaded guilty or claimed to be tried on the charges and this part can be complied with even by a pleader on behalf of the accused.

11. A Bench of this Court while relying upon the decision in the case of Srinivash Vajpai vs. State of Bihar reported in 1976 BUR 248: 1976 PLJR 521 and also in the case of S.C. Jain vs. State of Bihar reported in 1984 PLJR 16 and also in the case of Ravi Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar reported in 1979 B.B.C.J. 437, came to the conclusion that the impugned order in that case passed by the court below directing for personal appearance for the aforesaid purpose cannot be