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

1998 Supreme(Ker) 525

C.S.RAJAN
Mathai – Appellant
Versus
Principal District & Sessions Judge – Respondent


Judgment :-

C.S. Rajan, J.

The petitioners are represented by one Major K. Mathews, who styles himself as the Power of Attorney of the petitioners. There were proceedings before the Criminal Court in Thiruvananthapuram in which the petitioners were accused. Thereafter the second respondent filed a Criminal R.P. before the Sessions Court at Thiruvananthapuram. The Power of Attorney sought permission to represent the petitioners before the Sessions Court. For that purpose Ext. P-3 was filed. According to the Power of Attorney, the Sessions Court orally refused permission and he was not permitted to appear and plead for his parties. Therefore, this Original Petition has been filed.

2. Sri. Major K. Mathews appeared in person and argued his case. He has relied on S.2(q) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which reads as follows:

(q). "Pleader", when used with reference to any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practice in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding."

Thus, according to him, the pleader who appears in a criminal case includes any other person appointed with the







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