Specific permission from the court is required for representation by a non-advocate in a particular proceeding, and such permission must be requested by the parties themselves.

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 permission of the Court to act in such proceeding. He also relied on S.32 of the Advocates Act. Under the above Section any court may permit any person who is not enrolled as an Advocate to appear before it in any particular case, Sri. Major K. Mathews heavily relied on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Harishankar v. Girdhari (AIR 1978 SC 1019). While dealing with the right of a person who is a non-advocate to appear in a particular case the Supreme Court held as follows:

"It is open to a person, who is party to a proceeding, to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a particular instance or case.

A pleader, by definition, includes any person other than one authorised by law to practice in a court if he is appointed with the permission of the Court, to act in a particular proceeding. The Supreme Court's power may well be exercised regulating audience before it in tune with the spirit of S.2(q) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

A private person, who is not an advocate has no right to barge into court and claim to argue for a party, He must get the prior permission of the Court for which the motion must come from the party himself.

It is open to the Court to grant or with hold permission in its discretion. In fact the Court may, even after grant of permission, withdraw it halfway through if the representative proves himself reprehensible. The antecedents, the relationship, the reasons for requisitioning the services of the private person and a variety of order circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission."

3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, he has got every right to appear and plead on behalf of his clients and the permission to appear before the Sessions Court was refused illegally.

4. Under these circumstances, I requested the petitioner to make available the document under which he seeks permission to appear in this date. The above document is a general Power of Attorney executed by the petitioners in favour of Sri. Mathew. It details generally with the power to deal and handle various matters pertaining to the parties therein. It is pertinent to point out that no specific permission or authorisation was granted by the parties to the Power of Attorney to plead and appear in this particular case.

5. It must be remembered that the definition of 'pleader' in the Criminal Procedure Code, as noted above, specifically states that the non-advocate must be a person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding. Thus, it is quite clear that the permission must be with reference to the particular proceeding. Again S.32 of the Advocates Act also refers to the permission to appear before the Court in any particular case. Considering these provisions the Supreme Court also held that the person who w