The main legal point established is that the magistrate has the discretion to exempt the accused from personal attendance and permit the plea through counsel, especially in cases involving trivial and technical offenses and where the accused is elderly or in poor health.

1. These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records in S.T.C. Nos. 102 of 2012, 103 of 2012 and 104 of 2012 respectively on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin and set aside the order dated 8.10.2012 made in Cr. M.P. Nos. 6543 of 2012, 6545 of 2012 and 6547 of 2012 respectively and direct the Magistrate to accept the plea of the petitioner made through his counsel pending disposal of Crl. O.P. Nos. 17470 of 2012, 17471 of 2012 and 17472 of 2012 respectively.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein in all the petitions is one and the same and he is an accused in S.T.C. Nos. 102 of 2012, 103 of 2012 and 104 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin. The Inspector of Factories, Tuticorin had filed a private complaint against the petitioner in S.T.C. No. 102 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 62 read with Rule 241(1)(a)(9) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, in S.T.C. No. 103 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 39(1) Rule 210(1)(a)(b), Section 39(1) Rule 210(5) Rule 210(7)(3) and Section 40 Rule 51(d) Rule 54 and 42(5), 178 and 179 and in S.T.C. No. 104 of 2012 for the alleged offences under Sections 46(1) Rule 239(1) and R 26(3) of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 respectively.

4. The petitioner, who is the resident of Hyderabad, on receipt of summons engaged a counsel and his counsel appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tuticorin on 14.9.2012 and filed a petition under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused/petitioner and also filed admission petition voluntarily pleading guilty and admitting the facts. The complaints are filed against the petitioner for the offences which are punishable only with a fine as per Section 50 of the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996.

5. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tuticorin considering the health condition of the petitioner allowed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and adjourned the case to 8.10.2012. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate though allowed the application filed under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not accept the guilty memo filed by the petitioner through his counsel. The learned Magistrate passed an order on 8.10.2012 refusing to entertain the memo filed by the petitioner’s counsel and rejected the admission petition filed by the petitioner’s counsel. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had preferred these Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the order and also seeking for a direction to the learned Magistrate to accept the plea of the petitioner under Section 252 of the Code of Criminal Procedure through his counsel.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Magistrate refused to accept the plea of the petitioner through his counsel stating in his order that substance of the accusation has to be explained directly to the accused, and as such, the presence of the accused was absolutely necessary. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that offence for which the petitioner is charged is only technical offence and furthermore the offences are only punishable with fine only. There is no bar for the learned Magistrate to accept the plea of the petitioner admitting his guilt through his counsel.

7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the following decisions:

(1) In Mst. Munni B