proceedings, could be filed, through an attorney. Reliance therein, was placed, on Ravulu Subha Rao and others Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, 1956 (SC), 604. The careful perusal of the facts of Ravulu Subha Rao and others' case (supra), clearly goes, to show, that the question, before their Lordships of the Apex Court, that fell for determination, was with regard to the interpretation of Section 2 of the Power of Attorneys Act. In Ravulu Subha Rao and others' case (supra), no question, fell for decision, before the Apex Court, as to whether, the accused/petitioner, could file a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings, through attorney. Not only this, even the co-accused of Gurmit Kaur, accused/petitioner, in Gurmit Kaur's case (supra), had already been acquitted, by the trial Court. This Court, taking into consideration, the factum, that the evidence, against Gurmit Kaur, accused/petitioner, was the same, as was against her co-accused, who were acquitted, after trial, no useful purpose, shall be served, by keeping the criminal proceedings alive, and, as such, the same were quashed. In Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), no question, fell for decision, before a single Bench of this Court, as to whether, a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., could be filed, by an accused/petitioner, through an attorney. However, the Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, in Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), submitted that the petitioner, was ready to return, to India, and face prosecution. It was, under these circumstances, that this Court, in Kuldip Kaur @ Joginder Kaur's case (supra), directed that,
