( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 3529 of 2010 is filed by the accused Nos. 1 to 4 and Criminal Petition No. 3557 of 2010 is filed by the accused Nos. 2 to 4 under sec. 482 Cr. P. C. , for direction to the special Sessions Judge under the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act (in short, the Act), Warangal to accept memorandum of appearance filed by Advocate of choice of the petitioner to appear on their behalf to defend their case in Sessions Case No. 15 of 2007 on its file.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are accused of offences punishable under Sections 342, 323, 427, 506, 34 IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Act.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY, the petitioners engaged one Advocate by name G. Sanjeeva Reddy who filed memo of appearance on their behalf in the lower Court. Now the petitioners want to engage another Advocate by name N. Sekhara Rao. The petitioners filed memo of appearance of that Advocate in the lower Court and it was returned by the lower Court stating that 'no objection' of the previous Advocate should be obtained thereon. As against the said return endorsement on memo of appearance, the petitioners approached this Court with these petitions. The petitioners' present Counsel should have represented memo of appearance by endorsing resubmissions after return endorsement of the lower Court, stating that as per their contentions on law and on facts no such 'no objection' endorsement of the previous Counsel is necessary. Instead, they rushed to this Court with these petitions questioning return endorsement of the lower court and without impleading their previous advocate as party to these petitions. It is contended by the petitioners' Counsel that presence of the petitioners' previous Counsel is not necessary for the purpose of these petitions as he ceased to be the petitioners' advocate. But, at any rate, these Criminal petitions are not maintainable against mere ministerial Return Endorsement of the lower court and in the absence of any Judicial order passed by the lower Court.

( 4 ) THE petitioners' Counsel placed reliance on R. D. Saxena v. Balram Prasad sharma, 2000 (5) ALD 86 (SC) = (2000) 7 scc 274, of the Supreme Court on this subject. The following observations of the supreme Court are to be essentially noticed by all the Legal Professionals in order that they may not land in professional misconduct:

" (16) A litigant must have the freedom to change his Advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client, it is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.

" (17) IN civil cases, the appointment of an advocate by a party would be deemed to be in force until it is determined with the leave of the Court, (vide Order 3, Rule 4 (1)of the Code of Civil Procedure ). In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22 (1)of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shobharam and others" the words "of his choice" in Article 22 (1)indicate that the right of the accused to change an Advocate whom he once engaged in the same case cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.

" (18) IF a party terminates the engagement of an Advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document