Authored By : Henry Thoby Princep, T. Ameer Ali

Henry Thoby Princep and T. Ameer Ali, JJ.

1. This is an application complaining of an order passed bythe Extra Assistant Magistrate of Goalpara, refusing to dispense with thepersonal attendance of a parda-nashin woman who has been charged withdefamation. The Magistrate seems to think that, under the law, he has no suchpower, and the terras of his order leave it doubtful whether, if he held thathe has such power, he would not have exercised it. It seems to us that theMagistrate has taken an erroneous view of the law in this respect, and that heis competent to dispense with the personal attendance of the lady under theprovisions of Section 205, Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence, no doubt,is a warrant case, but under Section Section 204, a Magistrate can exercise hisdiscretion in such a case and issue a summons instead of a warrant. In thepresent case the Magistrate apparently did exercise such discretion. Section205 declares that, whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he seesreason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused andpermit him to appear by his pleader. The application of this section is notlimited to summons cases, but to any case in which a Magistrate may issue asummons. Section 205 consequently applies to a case of this description. Withthe expression of this opinion as to the law, we leave it to the Magistrate toexercise such discretion as he thinks fit and proper.

.

Basumoti Adhikarinivs. Budram Kalita (18.12.1893 -CALHC)+