A lawyer representing the accused under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, is competent to plead guilty or claim trial on behalf of the accused.

S. P. Sinha, J.

By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks an ORDER :quashing Annexures ‘1' and 2 of the petition. Annexure 1' is an ORDER :passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, dated the 23rd September. 1974, in Case no. 316 of 1968 by which he has refixed the trial after reframing of the charge and for examination of two of the prosecution witnesses after reframing of the charge. Annexure 2 is an ORDER :passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa who had been moved in revision against the ORDER :passed under Annexure 1'. The revision of Annexure 1’ was refused by Annexure 2.

2. The facts of this case lie in short compass.

The petitioner filed a criminal case before the Sub-divisional Officer, Supaul, against respondent no. 2 to 7. After examining the petitioner, who was the comp1ainant, on solemn affirmation cognizance of certain offences was taken against the said respondents. On the 24th September, 1970, charges under Sections 143, 379, 427 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code were framed. On this very date, an application under Section 540A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') was tiled on behalf of four of the respondents for permission to be represented through their lawyer. After framing of the charge it was read out and explained to the accused persons out of whom two were personally present and four were represented through lawyer. The two, who were personally present, as also the four, who were represented through a lawyer pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial, then commenced. Prosecution witnesses were cross examined on behalf of defence. The argument was then heard and the 23rd September, 1974, was fixed for delivery of JUDGMENT : and ORDER :s in the case. On the 23rd September, 1974, the learned Judicial Magistrate did not deliver the judgement, instead be observed that when charges were framed on the 24th September, 1970, all the accused persons were not personally present and since those, who were not personally present, had not been personally heard in regard to the charges against them, it was necessary to reframe the charges in their presence. He, accordingly, reframed the charges under the very same sections under which charges were previously framed against respondents 2 to 7. They claimed to be tried. A petition was then filed by the accused persons to recall prosecution witnesses 2 and 3 for further cross-examination. The petition was allowed and 1st October, 1974 was fixed for further cross-examination of the said witnesses. This ORDER :, as stated earlier, is Annexure 1 to the petition.

Being aggrieved by the said ORDER :(Annexure 1) the petitioner moved the learned Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in revision, which was numbered as Criminal Revision no. 340/74/25/75. The learned Sessions Judge by his ORDER :dated the 26th April, 1975, dismissed the application on the ground that the revision application was not maintainable having been directed against an interlocutory ORDER :. The ORDER :passed by the learned Sessions Judge is Annexure; 2 to the petition. The petitioner bas then moved this Court by this application.

3. Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the ORDER :contained in Annexure 1 was without jurisdiction and that the same should have been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, whose ORDER :is contained in Annexure 2 and that therefore, both these ORDER :s should be quashed. Mr. Jaiswal has submitted that when an accused has been permitted to be represented through a lawyer, the lawyer representing the accused was competent to make statement on behalf of the accused pleading not guilty to the charge. In this case the procedure, which was adopted, being one as laid under Chapter XXI of the Code, the lawyer could come with plea for trial in terms of Section 256 of the Code. He, therefore, submitted that no illegality had been committed by proc