I propose to dispose of the Criminal Revision along with the connected application for stay by a common order as desired by learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This is an application u/s. 401 of the Code of Crimi­nal Procedure, 1973, "the Code" for short directed against the order dated 14.10.1985 passed by Mr. A. Ahmed, Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari in Case No. 11 8C/85 u/s. 352/ 500 I. P. C. allowing the accused to be represented by his law­yer in exercise of his power u/s. 205 of "the Code". The in­dubitable position is that the accused is a public servant, at all relevant time. He was the Additional Deputy Commissioner and thereafter he was appointed as Deputy Commissioner, Nal­bari. At present the petitioner is the Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Assam. The power to "dispense with the personal attendance of an ace-used" is a "discretionary power" which may be exercised by lear­ned Magistrate in appropriate cases. The discretion has been exercised and the reasons have been set out in the impugned order. The very fact that the petitioner is a public servant and he is required to serve the people is a relevant circumstance. In view of the status, standing and the public duties to be per­formed by the accused learned Magistrate was justified in mak­ing the order. In this regard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner does not raise any objection. 3 However, learned counsel submits that the accused must appear at least once to enable the Magistrate to explain him the substance of the accusation as enjoined in Sec. 251 of "the Code". The section enjoins that in summons cases when acc­used appears or he is brought before the Court the particulars of the offence alleged against him should be stated to him and he should be asked whether "he pleads guilty or has any defe­nce to make" but it shall not be necessary to frame a formal charge. 4. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petit­ioner strenuously contends that the petitioner must appear be­fore the Court or in other words the learned Magistrate must call the accused to appear and explain the substance of the accusa­tion, otherwise upon his conviction the accused may contend that the trial was vitiated for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 251 of "the Code". Indeed, there are divergent views as to whether physical presence of the accused is necessary to explain the cha­rges when he is allowed to be represented by a lawyer. It been held affirmatively in Dorab Shah, ILR 1950 Bom. 250; Jaffar, AIR 1934 Bom. 212; Rusi, AIR 1954 Orissa. 65; Champa, AIR 1950 Cal. 161 ; Lakhanlal, AIR 1960 M. P. 186; Deolakhan, AIR 1963 Patna 371; and S. P. Sinha, 79 OWN 923 as well as negatively in Tapan, 57 CWN 135; Adeluddin, 49 CWN 537; Ishwar, 35 Crl. L. 3 879. It is thus seen that within the same High Court there are divergent views. In my opinion, the provisions of section 251 is meant for upholding the cause of justice. The accused must be informed the subs­tance of the allegation brought against him. The principles of natural justice have been statutorily recognised and the court is directed to comply with the terms thereof. An accused cannot be convicted unless he is informed about the allegation brought against him. In the event of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 251 of the Code if prejudice is caused to him he is undoubtedly entitled to relief. On perusal of Chapter XXXV of "the Code' dealing with irregular proceedings I do not find that failure to explain the allegation vitiates the trial. Section 464 of "the Code” states that any error, omission or irregularity in framing the charge cannot be a ground for setting aside the findings, sentence or order of a court of competent jurisdi­ction unless a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. If a literate accused gets a copy of the complaint petition, reads and understands it the mere omission to comply with the terms of section 251 of the Code may not be fatal. Similarly when the accused is defended by a lawyer and there is nothing to show that the allegation or the charges were not understood by the accused and/or his lawyer the trial is not vitiated. The provision is raids to inform the accused about the allegation brought against him aid to admit or deny the same. If the case is contested and the allegations are challenged or questioned by tae accused or his lawyer there can not be any question of prejudice. In the instant case the accused holds a high office. He is literate. He knows the allegations. If the case is contested and the allegations are challenged or questioned by tae accused or his lawyer there can not be any question of prejudice. In the instant case the accused holds a high office. He is literate. He knows the allegations. He has engaged a lawyer. As such, where is the question of commencement of the trial without intimating the accused the sub­stance of the allegation. The accused-opposite party has every right to appear in person, plead guilty or not to plead guilty, as he desires. If the accused desires to appear before the Court, he is free to appear and the Magistrate is bound to record his plea "as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused". When an accused is represented by his lawyer the substance of the allegation may be explained to the lawyer and he can act on behalf of his client and deny the allegation but if it is a case of admission of guilt the accused may personally appear and make the statement. Statement should be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him. However, when the ac­cused intimates his lawyer to contest the case and denies the allegation, his lawyer may on instruction received act on behalf of his client and deny the allegation. This denial can be treated as the denial of the accused. The very question came up before the Law Commission as to whether an accused whose appeara­nce has been dispensed with under Section 205 of the Cr. P. C. should personally appear before the Court or it would suffice if he appears and acts on his behalf. The Law Commission thus resolved the problem : "We do not think a member of the legal profession is likely to act without clear instructions in such a mat­ter, and we therefore see no great danger in entrusting this task to the accused's pleader may answer the charge against him". A bare perusal of the observations shows that the Court may explain the charges to the lawyer of the accused who may on instruction received deny the charges or admit the charges. If the lawyer pleads guilty on behalf of his client the Court may ask for written instruction of the accused. A bare perusal of the observations shows that the Court may explain the charges to the lawyer of the accused who may on instruction received deny the charges or admit the charges. If the lawyer pleads guilty on behalf of his client the Court may ask for written instruction of the accused. It would be for the learned Magistrate to consider whether in the instant case the lawyer has been authorised by his client to act on his behalf and/or represent him. If the lawyer is explained the substance of the accus­ation and he denies the allegation and contests the case no question of prejudice will arise. If the learned lawyer admits the guilt of the accused, learned Magistrate may record the statement as sta­ted by the lawyer or he may ask for a written instruction from the accused and to act on that. If the admission of the guilt is on the basis of the instruction of the accused and the lat­ter is convicted and sentenced the same can not be called in question by the accused unless he establishes that the lawyer acted beyond his jurisdiction or acted contrary to his instruction or in violation thereof. In the instant case the personal attendance of the accused has been dispensed with and his law­yer has been permitted to appear in his place. The lawyer is representing the accused u/s. 205 of the Code on the authority of a Vaklatnama duly signed by the accused empowering or aut­horising the lawyer to represent him. All acts of the lawyer representing the accused should be treated as the act of the accused. In the instant case if the imputations are explained to the lawyer and if he denies the allegation the accused can not turn around and say that he was prejudiced. At his requ­est, the Court has dispensed with his personal appearance and allowed his lawyer to act on his behalf. Under these circum­stances, the question of failure of justice can not arise tall. However, if the learned Magistrate considers that the accused should appear in person he may call upon the accused and ex­plain the offence to him. Learned Magistrate may explain the substance of the accusation to the lawyer representing the accused. If the lawyer of the accused admits the guilt Learned Magistrate may call upon him to produce the written instruction if thinks It just and expedient. Learned Magistrate may explain the substance of the accusation to the lawyer representing the accused. If the lawyer of the accused admits the guilt Learned Magistrate may call upon him to produce the written instruction if thinks It just and expedient. In my opinion it will be for the learned Magistrate to decide what procedure he should adopt. 1 can not accept the contention that the accused should invariably appear in person for getting the particulars of the offence expl­ained to him. His lawyer may act on his be half. 5. In support of the contention that the provisions of Sec. 251 of the Code are mandatory Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Surath Chandra v. The State, AIR 1961 Assam 19 where Sarjoo Prasad, J. has observed that the provisions of Sees. 242 and 243 of the 'old Code' are very salutary and are necessary for the protection of the accused and for the proper administration of Justice which would inspire confidence in the administration. In that case the state­ment of the accused was not recorded at all as required by Section 243 of the old Code, bat learned Magistrate assumed that the accused admitted his guilt. It was not a case where the accused was allowed to be represented by lawyer. It was a case in which the accused was personally present in Court. His statement was not recorded at all but the learned Magist­rate he that the accused admitted his guilt and convened him. Against the conviction the accursed preferred a revision and his Lordship held that with out examining the accused personally and recording his admission learned Magistrate could not reach the conclusion that the accused had admitted his guilt. Indeed, when the accused and/or his pleader representing him admits the guilt the statement should be meticulously recorded in writ­ing. It is essential for the Magistrate to record the admission as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. The provisions of Section 252 of the Code are mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kaushlya, AIR 1956 SC 22. It is essential for the Magistrate to record the admission as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused. The provisions of Section 252 of the Code are mandatory in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kaushlya, AIR 1956 SC 22. Therefore, whether the accused personally admits his guilt or his lawyer acting on the instruction of his client admits his guilt, the statement must be recorded in the words of the person admitting the guilt and then and then only a co­nviction can be sustained. In that sense the provision is man­datory. In the instant case the question of admission of guilt has not arisen. If that question come up learned Magistrate may call the accused person or may act on the statement of the lawyer representing the accused, as Learned Magistrate may ask the lawyer; if he considers it necessary, to produce written instruct­ion from the accused. There are statutes in which the accused may send his admission of guilt in writing and the Magistrate may act on such writing. Say, the provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 6. For the foregoing reasons I hold that there is no merit in the applications and accordingly, they are dismissed. However, learned Magistrate shall comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall not cause any prejudice to the parties. Send back the records to the Court below.