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 . That ruling lays down that in a summons case a pleader may make a statement under Sections 242 and 243 before the trial begins on behalf of an accused person. That is an entirely different matter from the statement u/s 342, Cr.P.C. When an accused person appears before the Court in a summons case he shall be asked whether he has any cause to show why he should not be convicted. The mere statement under that section is entirely different from the statement u/s 342 which is to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused. The present case is a warrant case and therefore the procedure of a summons case has no bearing. The next ruling on which learned Counsel relied was the ruling of a Single Judge reported in Maung Po Nyein v. Haka Singh AIR 1927 Rang. 73. In that case two purdah ladies were being tried before a Magistrate and the learned Judge stated:

I agree with the learned District Magistrate. The women could be permitted to answer the examination through their pleader. Section 342 has to my mind been enacted to safeguard the interests of accused persons. The legislature contemplates that they should always get an opportunity of explaining any circumstances that may appear against them....

4. I do not agree with this view of the law. Section 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 him. The accused may or may not be able to explain those circumstances, and if the accused is not able to explain the circumstances then the Court may draw a presumption against the accused. The intention of the provision in my opinion is for the furtherance of justice and to enable the Court to decide the issue in a criminal case, which is always : "Did the accused commit the offence charged?" The learned Single Judge of the Burma High Court has made no attempt to explain the words "question him" in Section 342(1). If the Legislature had intended to admit a statement made by an advocate in place of a statement made by the accused the Legislature would have made provision to that effect. In my opinion Sub-section 2 of Section 205 is inserted partly for the purpose of enabling the Court to act as it has acted in the present case and to require the personal attendance of the accused for the purpose of making the explanation u/s 342, Criminal P.C. Section 342(a) states that no oath shall be administered to the accused. Further it is provided in the Evidence Act, that the statement of one accused under certain circumstances may be taken into account against other co-accused. These provisions indicate that the Legislature intends that the statement should be a personal statement made by the accuse