The main legal point established is that a power of attorney holder cannot automatically act as a pleader in criminal proceedings without court permission, and the court has a duty to ensure the capability of the appointed person to represent the party.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant claims to be the power of attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) now living in Kuwait. He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions Court (they will be referred to as the respondent -couple). But the Sessions Judge declined to grant permission as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. Thereupon appellant moved the High Court of Kerala under Art.226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for. A single judge of the High Court dismissed the original petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal which too was dismissed by a 'Division Bench of the High Court.

3. Undeterred by the successive setback in securing a right of audience-on behalf of the aforesaid couple the appellant travelled the long distance from the southern end of the country right up to the National Capital to personally argue before the apex Court that he is entitled to plead for the respondent-couple in the Sessions Court. We heard the appellant in-person though we are still now unable to appreciate why he, instead of incurring so much expenses and strain, did not advise the respondent-couple to engage a counsel for pleading their cause before the Sessions Court.

4. Appellant during the course of his arguments, referred to a commentary on Criminal Law to support his contention that a power of attorney holder has all powers to act on behalf of his principal. We would assume that the respondent-couple would have executed an instrument of power of attorney empowering appellant to act on their behalf. Can he become a pleader for the respondent-couple on the strength of it?

5. S.303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") entitles a person to the right of being defended by a "pleader" of his choice when proceedings are intimated against him under the Code. "Pleader" is defined in S.2(q) as this:

"Pleader', when used with reference to any proceeding in any court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceedings"

6. The definition envelopes two kinds of pleaders within its ambit. The first refers to legal practitioners who are authorised to practise law and the second refers to "any other person". If it is the latter its essential requisite is that such person should have been appointed with the permission of the court to act in such proceedings. This is in tune with S.32 of the Advocates Act 1961 which empowers a Court to permit any person, who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before it in any particular case. But if he is to plead for another person in a criminal court, such permission should be sought for by that person.

7. It is not necessary that the "pleader" so appointed should be the power of attorney holder of the party in the case. What seems to be condition precedent is that his appointment should have preceded by grant of permission of the Court. It is for the court to consider whether such permission is necessary in the given case and whether the person proposed to be appointed is capable of helping the court by pleading for the party, for arriving at proper findings on the issues involved in the case.

8. The work in a court of law is a serious and responsible, function. The primary duty of criminal court is to administer criminal justice. Any lax or wayward approach, if adopted towards the issues involved in the case, can cause serious consequences for the parties concerned. It is not just some body representing the party in the criminal court who becomes the pleader of the party. In the adversary system which is now being followed in India, both in civil and crimina