( 1. ) THIS is an application in revision from the concurrent orders of the Magistrate and the sessions judge dismissing applicants prayer firstly that the complaint against her under Sections 494 496 and 109, I. P. C. filed by the non-applicant "through her son Tejsingh", should be dismissed; secondly that she should in the special circumstances of the case have been exempted trom personal attendance under Section 540a of the Cri. Pro, Code. these questions often arise in criminal courts and it will be convenient to set out the general principles that should be applied in such cases.

( 2. ) THE facts of the case are simple and straightforward. The non-applicant filed a complaint against the applicant and Kishansingh Rajput to the following effect. Kishansingh had married the non-applicant years ago and has a son by her, For a few years the present applicant and Kishansing had been working as a school master and a teacher in the same town viz. Ratangarh they married though already there was another wife namely the complainant. The complaint was filed in accordance with the proviso to Section 198 Cr. P. C. through the son Tejsingh.

( 3. ) APPEARING on the issue of bailable warrants they prayed, firstly the complaint was not; lodged in proper form and should have been dismissed, and if the case were to proceed at all, both the accused should be exempted from personal appearance and allowed, to appear through pleader.

( 4. ) IN support of the first contention it is urged, while the Magistrate has jurisdiction to permit: the complaint by somebody other than the complainant, in case she is a pardanashin lady, the present complaint is not by Tejsingb on behalf of his mother, but one by the mother herself through Tejsingh. Therefore the Magistrate has committed an error of law in granting leave to Tejsingh. It is certainly difficult to understand what is meant. As a rule, a complaint under Sections 494 and 496 should be by the person aggrieved. Exceptionally, the court can grant leave to a authorised person to file a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved person. Here the Magistrate has proceeded on the factual assumption that the complainant is a pardanashin lady in which event, of course, the first proviso to Section 198 is automatically attracted. The complainant is a Rajput woman of the old school, and in that caste the woman of the old school ought not to be compelled to appear in public. the real objection urged by the applicants that this is not a complaint by Tejsingh "acting on behalf of his mother" but it is in form a complaint by the mother herself acting "through marfat her son Tejsingh". Frankly, this is mere quibbling, and typical of arguments that are advanced from time to time in our courts. After all a rule of procedure is not an incantation or mantra thaf must be recited precisely in a particular pitch at the risk of the singer going to the wrong world. It is a principle of fair play and Convenience which must be understood and applied in a broad common sense manner. When the complainant is a Pardanashin lady and does not want to appear, the court ought not compel her to do so and had therefore necessarily to permit somebody else to conduct the case on her behalf, It really makes no difference whether the person who is granted leave to act on behalf of the complainanl says either that he is complaining on her behalf or comes into the picture with the verified complaint "through, him", I. therefore, find no sub-stances in the first ground.

( 5. ) COMING to the second ground it is urged that in view of the recent decisions of the different High Courts under Section 540a, Cri. P. C. courts should be generous in. exempting accused persons from personal appearance. It is unnecessary to set out the rulings at length because the principle is sound and unexceptional. The question is whether tills is an appropriate case for its exercise. Personal appearance is the rule in criminal cases of a serious nature, involving mo