SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1985 Supreme(Guj) 139

D.C.GHEEWALA
PATEL VARYABHAI JESANGDAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: MANGALDAS M.SHAH, MAYA DESAI, S.T.MEHTA

D. C. GHEEWALA, J.

( 1 ) THE present revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned JMFC Vijapur in Criminal Case No. 1104 of 1983 rejecting the complainants prayer that his private Advocate Mr. M. M. Shah be permitted to conduct the case on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that such a request cannot be granted. He therefore rejected the said application and the said order is being sought to be challenged before me.

( 2 ) MR. M. M. Shah the learned advocate appearing for the complainant-petitioner drew my attention to sec. 301 of the Criminal Procedure Code which reads as under:"301 The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a ease may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry trial or appeal. (2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor and may with the permissi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top