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

1989 Supreme(Ker) 101

THOMAS
JOSEPH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This miscellaneous petition is for dispensing with the copy of the order which a Sessions Judge" has passed dismissing the application moved in that court to enlarge an accused on bail. This miscellaneous petition has been moved in a criminal miscellaneous case filed in this court under S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for enlarging the said accused on bail. As the Sessions Court declined to release the accused on bail, normally, petitioner should have produced a copy of the order of the Sessions Court here. Learned counsel expressed the difficulty, in that, the Sessions Judge rejected his application to grant copy of the order to the counsel on the ground that the counsel had not filed vakalath. The stand of the learned Sessions Judge is that a copy of the order could be supplied to the counsel only on filing a special vakalath as envisaged in R.35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (for short 'the Rules of Practice'). The counsel had filed a memorandum of appearance in the lower court containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed by the accused. It is admitted that the counsel had not filed a vakalath or a power of attorney








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