SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a transfer application which can be traced only to Section 407 of criminal Procedure Code. It is apt to extract the provisions contained under section 407 of Cr. P. C. The relevant provisions contained under Section 407 cr. P. C. are:-"407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals- (1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court- (a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any criminal court subordinate thereto, or (b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or (c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of Justice. "

( 2 ) IN the instant case Mr. C. Balakrishna appearing as party-in-person raised only one contention viz. , that inasmuch as a Senior Advocate of this court viz. , mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy is coming and appearing in the court at Tirupathi and is also challenging that he will continue to appear wherever the case is transferred and heard and as he (Mr. C. Balakrishna) feels that the appearance of Mr. C. Padmanabha Reddy is detrimental to his interest. Mr. C. Padmanabha reddy is not entitled to appear in this case. He further argues that there is no fundamental right for any Advocate enrolled on the rolls of Bar Council to practise anywhere he chooses unless the court permits to do so. He further contends that even if the court permits the Advocate to appear, when a party in person, like one in the instant case, opposes the appearance of that particular advocate, that particular Advocate should cease to appear in that case. For this he cites Arts. 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution concerning on the aspect of right to life meaning not mere animal existence but life with some quality and cited judgment rendered in Karak Singh vs. State of U. P. and Frances Mullins case as also Mohibi Jains case. He further stresses that inasmuch as Section 30 of the advocates Act, 1961 is not in operation, the abovenamed Advocate shall not appear in this case.

( 3 ) MR. T. Bali Reddy, appearing for the contesting respondents i. e. , 1 and 2, contends otherwise. He submits that as the above Advocate is a senior advocate and is on the rolls of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and as his certification to plead as an Advocate is subsisting and is not either suspended or cancelled, the said Advocate is entitled to practise anywhere in Andhra pradesh as of right even if Section 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is not in operation. In so far as the operation of Sec. 30 of the Advocates Act, 1961 is concerned, the Supreme Court Judgment rendered in Lingappa vs. State of maharashtra held that the said provision is not in operation. Then the consequences flowing from the said provision being not in operation are that while Advocates enrolled in a particular State are entitled to practise as of right within the precincts of that State, beyond that State they can appear with the permission of the Courts. But in the instant case the court where the case is posted for hearing is within the territory of Andhra Pradesh and is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court. In none of the clauses mentioned supra the ground which is taken by Mr. C. Balakrishna fits in for the transfer of the matter from one court to another as sought for. In fact what Mr. C. Balakrishna stresses is even if the case is transferred as sought for by him, the problem is not solved as the above named advocate will appear in this case and if the above named Advocates appears no justice will be done to him. But I apprehend that this cannot be a ground for transfer and in fact even according to the party, transfer of the case will not solve the problem but the above-named advocate should be restrained from appearing in the instant case. In exercise of my functions under Sec. 407 of Cr. P. C. there is no warrant for me to restrain any advocate from app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document