Dave, J.—This case comes on a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, by his report dated 22nd April 1954.

2. The facts giving rise to it are that on 28th June, 1953 one Govind Narain made a report to the Sub-Inspector Police, Division B Jodhpur that he had advanced a loan of Rs. 9001/- to Sahebjada Faijmohamad of Jodhpur and Faijmohamad had therefore mortgaged his house with him for the said amount. He had also executed a rent-note in favour of the complainant. On 13-1-40 the complainant got a decree for possession of the house and also for arrears of rent. On 17-4-53 he was put in possession of the house through the bailiff of the court. It was alleged by him that one Mst. Begum Fezun, widow of Taj Mohamed Khan, and Noor Mohamed Khan made a criminal trespass into his house and took possession of certain portion thereof and therefore, it was prayed that they should be dealt with for committing offences under secs. 447, 448 and 379 I.P.C. The police investigated into the matter and challa-ned Mst. Begum Fezun Bibi and Noor Mohamad under sec. 448 I.P.C.

3. Before the commencement of inquiry an application was presented by Mst. Begum Fejun to dispense with her personal attendance in the court under sec. 205 Cr.P.C. on the ground that she was old and also a pardanashin lady. On the 20th July,1953that application was granted and she was allowed to appear by a pleader. Thereafter the prosecution evidence was recorded. The court wanted to examine the accused under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. On 26th February, 1954, her advocate was therefore ordered to produce her in the court on the next date of hearing. Against this order accused presented an application in revision in the court of the Sessions Judge Jodhpur. It was urged therein that the case against the accused was a petty one, that it was in the nature of a civil suit and a criminal case was started just to dispossess her from the property. It was also urged that she was continuing in possession of that property for a number of years and she was never dispossessed by the court bailiff. It was further contended that in a case like this her advocate could be examine on her behalf under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. and that a charge could also be framed in the same manner. It was prayed that in such a case even if the accused was convicted there could only be a punishment of fine and therefore,she should be exempted under sec. 205 Cr.P.C. right up to the conclusion of the trial. These arguments have found favour with the learned Sessions Judge and therefore he has reported the case with the recommendation that the accused Mst. Begum Fejun should be allowed to appear by her pleader right upto the conclusion of the trial.

4. Learned advocate for the accused has supported the reference while learned Government Advocate contests it.

5. It is urged by the learned Government Advocate that the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have made any remark on the facts of the case because it is likely to preju-dice the trial court. It is also requested that this Court also should not go into the facts of the case. This argument is quite correct and I would not express any opinion about the strength or the weakness of the prosecution case at this stage.

6. The only point to be considered is whether the attendance of the accused Mst. Begum Fezun in the trial court may be dispensed with right upto the conclusion of the trial. Learned Government Advocate has urged that the advocate of the accused cannot be examined by the court under sec. 342 Cr.P.C. and that the accused must therefore personally appear in the court so that she may be examined, according to the provisions of the said section. In support of his argument he has referred to the case of Ishwar vs. Bhagwandas (1). In that case it was observed that: —

"Sec. 342 does not purport to be only in the interest of accused persons. On the contrary it is laid down that the purpose is to enable the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against

Click Here to Read the rest of this document