Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by my brother Devadoss and I entirely agree in the conclusion that he has arrived at, a conclusion which was also arrived at by Wallace, J., in Varadarajulu v. Kuppuswami A. I. R. 1927 Mad. 18..

2. As I also find myself in complete accord with the reasoning of those learned Judges, it is unnecessary for me to add more than a few words. It may no doubt happen from time to time that to allow a proposed accused person to appear and to hear what he has to say while the proceedings are at the stage contemplated by Section 202 of the Criminal P. C., might turn the scale and satisfy the Magistrate that there was no case for issuing process under Section 204. I make no doubt that it is in this view that Magistrates have been in the habit of giving a person against whom a charge is formulated at least an option to come before them if he so desires at the earliest stage. It seems to me that such a procedure is entirely unwarranted by the Code.

3. The object of the chapter of the Code in which Section 202 appears is to prevent accused persons being harassed at all or asked to appear if in the