ORDER.- The facts giving rise to this Revision Petition filed under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, by one D. A. S. Swami in his personal capacity are these. In C.C. No. 6481 of 1966 on the file of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, one Kuppuswamy alias Kubendran filed a Complaint against Kandaswami Mudaliar under sections 409 and 403, Indian Pencal Code. On 23rd April, 1966, he prayed for the issue of the summons to the accused for appearance on 30th April, 1966. On 30th April, 1966, one Sri T. R. Venkataraman, a lawyer, entered appearance on behalf of the accused and prayed that the absence of the accused for that day might be excused on medical grounds. That was excused. The case was adjourned to 9th May, 1966, and that day, being a holiday, it was adjourned again to 20th May, 1966. In the meantime the accused executed a power of attorney in favour of D.A.S. Swami. It may be taken that thereby Sri T. R. Venkataraman was no longer appearing for the accused. The power of attorney is in the following terms: “ I hereby appoint my lawyer Mr. D.A.S. Swami, B.A., B.L., of 33 Habibullah Road, T. Nagar, to represent me and to act on my behalf in C.C. No. 6481 of 1966 and M.P.No. 70 of 1966 on the file of the Second Presidency Magistrate, George Town, in addition to or in substitution for any Advocate engaged or to be engaged by him. He is further authorised by me to apply under section 4 (1) (r) and section 540-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.” It may be mentioned at once that though in the power of attorney D. A. S. Swami is described as a lawyer and is a person holding a law degree, actually he is not on the rolls as a lawyer. It is necessary to mention this at the outset because there is a special definition of a ‘Pleader ‘in section 4 (1) (r) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the following effect: “ ‘Pleader’ used with reference to any proceeding in any Court means a Pleader authorised under any law for the time being in force to practice in such Court, and includes an Advocate, a Vakil and an Attorney of a High Court so authorised and any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding.” Since Swami was not an Advocate, a Vakil or an Attorney, he would not be a Pleader under the first sub-clause and would require the permission of the Court under sub-clause (2) to be a Pleader and act for the accused in the case. The power of attorney seems to take note of this and that was why it mentioned section 4 (1) (r). On 10th May, 1966, itself D. A. S. Swami presented two petitions; one petition in the name of the accused under section 4 (1) (r) was to this effect: “ It is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to appear through his lawyer Mr. D. A. S. Swami in whose favour he has executed a power of attorney for this purpose.” The other petition was under section 540-A, Criminal Procedure Code, to this effect: ‘‘It is prayed that the personal attendance of the petitioner be dispensed with as a medical certificate has been already produced.“ Both these petitions were signed by D. A. S. Swami styling himself as” petitioner’s agent ‘. No orders were passed on the above petitions. No orders were passed on the above petitions. Section 540-A may be quoted here: “At any stage of an inquiry or trial under this Code, if the Judge or Magistrate is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded, that the personal attendance of the accused before the Court is not necessary in the interests of justice, the Judge or Magistrate may, if the accused is represented by a Pleader dispense with his attendance and proceed with such inquiry or trial in his absence, and may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings, direct the personal attendance of such accused.” On 20th May, 1966, a further petition was presented in the name of the accused to this effect: It is prayed that the presence of the accused be dispensed with under section 540-A, Criminal procedure Code. This was also signed by D. A. S. Swami as “ petitioner’s agent”. The learned Magistrate passed an order which may be deciphered as “dispensed with”. Some two petitions were filed on 27th May, 1966, and 30th May, 1966, but they were ordered to be called on 31st May, 1966. On 31st May, 1966, the complainant’s Counsel presented a petition to the following effect: “The accused in the above case is not appearing before this Honourable Court and no power of attorney can represent the accused under section 205, Criminal Procedure Code. Only an Advocate in whose behalf special vakalat is given by the accused can represent the accused and none else. It is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the accused to appear in this Honourable Court or by a duly authorised Advocate and reject the memo. filed by the power of attorney holder.” Section 205 (1), Criminal Procedure Code, may be quoted here: Whenever a Magistrate issues a summons, he may, if he sees reason so to do, dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and permit him to appear by his Pleader.“ Upon the above petition, the learned Magistrate passed the following order on 8th June, 1966: Heard. Unless the accused appoints and the Court permits one cannot come in as Pleader to represent the accused. As such the accused is directed to appear and move for permission of Court to appoint his Pleader if necessary.” The present Revision Petition has been filed against the above order dated 8th June, 1966. Unless the accused appoints and the Court permits one cannot come in as Pleader to represent the accused. As such the accused is directed to appear and move for permission of Court to appoint his Pleader if necessary.” The present Revision Petition has been filed against the above order dated 8th June, 1966. As stated already, this petition has been filed by D. A. S. Swami on his own behalf and not in the name of the accused. A question arises out of this straightaway whether D. A. S. Swami can claim a right of audience in this Court on behalf of occupation of being a power of attorney agent of others. Section 4 (1) (r), Criminal Procedure Code, will come into play only where such a person seeks to act for the accused and plead for him. It should be clear from the discussion so far that D. A. S. Swami has no locus standi to ventilate in this petition any grievance of the accused. It will be time enough to consider the situation if the accused himself should come forward with another criminal revision petition ventilating his own grievance. I shall turn to the alternative limb of the argument of D. A. S. Swami that in this petition he is ventilating his own personal grievance. He urges that he has got a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) to carry on the occupation of a power of attorney agent of persons like the accused and that the provision in section 4 (1) (r), Criminal Procedure Code, requiring him to seek the previous permission of the Court is violative of that fundamental right and must be struck down. I shall assume for the purpose of this argument without deciding it that the activity of D. A. S. Swami can be called ‘carrying on an occupation ‘within the meaning of Article 19 (1) (g). As part of the occupation he wants to appear in a criminal Court and act for the accused by which he also means a right to plead for the accused. It seems to me that the restriction in section 4 (1) (r), Criminal Procedure Code requiring the previous permission of the Court is quite a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. It seems to me that the restriction in section 4 (1) (r), Criminal Procedure Code requiring the previous permission of the Court is quite a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19 (6) of the Constitution. Article 19 (6) itself contemplates that it is open to the State to make a law relating to professional or technical qualification necessary for practising any profession, or carrying on any occupation, and section 4 (1) (r), Criminal Procedure Code, can be justified under this provision. The Court may in a given case permit even a person not qualified in law to plead for an accused and certainly the previous permission of the Court is only a minimum requirement and cannot be attacked as an unreasonable restriction on the supposed fundamental right of D. A. S. Swami. In the result, the petition is dismissed. R.M. ------------- Petition dismissed.