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 r/w. Section 34, IPC. The respondents appeared before 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 petitioner for the release of his passport and the Court below as per its order dt. 21-4-1998 ordered for the release of the passport on the 1st respondent executing bond for Rs. 25000/- 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 Cri. 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 had 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 Section 205, Cr.P.C. In Raman Nair v. State of Kerala, 1999 3 Ker LT 714 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. 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 a inquiry or 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 pleader, or if the Judge or Magist