Judges : THOMAS
JOSEPH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA - Respondent
Case No : Crl. M.P. No. 352 of 1989 in Crl. M.C. No. 203 of 1989
Decided On : 03/07/1989
Advocates Appeared :
T.V. Prabhakaran; For Petitioner Public Prosecutor; For Respondents
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT - Right to Legal Representation - S.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Interpretation of fundamental right to legal representation and Rules of Practice.
Fact of the Case:
Petition for dispensing with the copy of the order passed by Sessions Judge dismissing bail application.
Finding of the Court:
Interpretation of fundamental right to legal representation and Rules of Practice.
Ratio Decidendi: A pleader can receive copies of judgments or proceedings in court without filing a vakalath, provided he files a memorandum of appearance.
Result: The court allowed the petition and dispensed with the production of the copy of the lower court order.
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 executed by the accused in the lower court. The question has, therefore, to be considered whether a copy of the order can be supplied to the counsel without filing a vakalath or power of attorney executed by the accused.
2. It is the fundamental right of every person arrested "to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice". No fetter can be imposed and no restriction can be placed on the fundamental right so guaranteed by the Constitution of India. But the Parliament has further widened the scope of the said right by conferring the said right on any person accused of an offence or against whom any proceedings have been instituted under the Code. This is evident from S.303 of the Code which reads thus:
"Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice"
Thus a pleader can defend an accused against proceedings instituted under the Code. This is the protected right of the accused. The pleader in defending the accused may have to adopt various legal steps including filing application for bail. "Pleader" is defined in S.2(q) of the Code as "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". R.31 of the Rules of Practice provides that a pleader shall file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed by or on behalf of, the party whom he claims to represent. On filing a memorandum of appearance the pleader is entitled to appear and act on behalf of the accused in any criminal court.
3. R.35 of the Rules of Practice which is relied on by the learned Sessions Judge says that "no pleader shall be entitled to take delivery of property or receive money or document on behalf of his clients unless specially authorised to do so by the vakalath or the power of attorney". The embargo in R.35 is against (1) taking delivery of property (2) receiving money and (3) receiving documents. Here, the copy of proceedings need not necessarily be construed as a document although copy of proceedings in a wider sense is also a document. It is not in that wider sense that the term 'document' is used in R.35. This can be discerned from the other rules embodied in the Rules of Practice. Chapter XXV of the Rules of Practice deals with "certified copies". R.222 says that every application "for a copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of a court shall be presented by the applicant or his pleader ". R.226 enables a stranger to apply "for the grant of copies of any proceeding or document". R.227 which permits the filing of a single application for co
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.