SHRINIVAS BAJPAYEE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner seeks an order quashing Annexures 1 and 2 of the petition. Annexure '1' is an order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, dated the 23rd September, 1974, in Case no. 316 of 1968 by which he has refixed the trial after reframing of the charge and for examination of two of the prosecution witnesses after reframing of the charge. Annexure 2 is an order passed by the learned second Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa who had been moved in revision against the order passed under Annexure '1'. The revision of Annexure 1 was refused by Annexure 2. The facts of this case lie in short compass.

(2.) Mr. Jaiswal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order contained in Annexure 1 was without jurisdiction and that the same should have been set aside by the learned Sessions Judge, whose order is contained in Annexure 2 and that therefore, both these orders should be quashed. Mr. Jaiswal has submitted that when an accused has been permitted to be represented through a lawyer, the lawyer representing the accused was competent to make statement on behalf of the accused pleading not guilty to the charge. In this case the procedure, which was adopted, being one as laid under Chapter XXI of the Code, the lawyer could come with plea for trial in terms of Sec. 256 of the Code. He, therefore, submitted that no illegality had been committed by processing with the trial after the two accused persons who were personally present and the lawyer, representing the absentee accused persons, had pleaded not guilty to the charges.

(3.) No body has appeared on behalf of respondents 2 to 7 to oppose this application.