Back
2007 Supreme(Kar) 185
Karnataka High Court
Judges : Mohan Shantanagoudar
VINAYA L.SHETTY - Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, URVA POLICE STATION, URVA - Respondent
Criminal Petition 609 Of 2007
Decided On : 03/16/2007
Advocates Appeared :
A.V.Ramakrishna, P.P.Hegde
Filing a memorandum of appearance by the advocate was held to be sufficient under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, in criminal proceedings.
Headnote:
Vakalath - Criminal Procedure - The court set aside an order directing the petitioners' advocate to file vakalath, holding that filing a memorandum of appearance was sufficient under Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition under section 438 Cr. P. C. for anticipatory bail. The advocate for the petitioners filed a memo of appearance instead of vakalath, which was objected to by the Sessions Court office. The Court upheld the objection and directed the advocate to file vakalath.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was contrary to established dictum and Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, which stated that filing a memorandum of appearance was sufficient for the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused in criminal proceedings.
Issues: The issue was whether filing a memorandum of appearance was sufficient or if the advocate was required to file vakalath in the criminal proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the dictum laid down in previous cases and Rule 6(2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 to conclude that filing a memorandum of appearance was indeed sufficient.
Final Decision: The impugned order directing the petitioners' advocate to file vakalath was set aside, and the Criminal Petition was allowed in favor of the petitioners.
( 1 ) SRI A. V. Ramakrishna, learned government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the Court below has directed the petitioners' advocate to file vakalath.
( 3 ) THE records disclose that the petitioners had filed the petition under section 438 Cr. P. C. , praying for an order of anticipatory bail. Alongwith the petition, the Advocate for the petitioners had filed a memo of appearance instead of vakalath. The Office of the Sessions Court raised objection. The Court below after hearing, upheld the office objection by observing that the petitioners' Advocate will have to file vakalath.
( 4 ) THE impugned order is contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 1978 (1) KLJ 148 and ajay Mehta and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR CRL. LJ 350.
( 5 ) EVEN the bare perusal of Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 would make it clear that it would be sufficient for the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused to file memorandum of appearance in Criminal proceedings containing a declaration that he has been fully instructed to appear by or on behalf of the party whom he claims to represent. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Criminal Petition is allowed.
