ORDER

Bennet, J. - This is an application in revision against an order of a Bench of special Magistrates of Meerut requiring that both the accused should appear in person to make an explanation u/s 342, Cr.P.C., Prior to the order the attendance of the accused had been excused u/s 205, Cr.P.C. Section 205(2) states:

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 manner herein before provided.

2. Section 342 lays down:

For the purpose of enabling the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court shall, for the purpose aforesaid, question him generally on the case after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence.

3. The language used is compulsory as it is stated that the Court shall question him. Learned Counsel has argued that instead of questioning the accused it is open to the Court to question his advocate. Learned Counsel referred for this proposition firstly to the ruling reported in Dorabshah Bomanji Dubash Vs. Emperor, AIR 1926 Bom 218