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

1959 Supreme(Ker) 29

Judges : T.K.JOSEPH
Achuthan Kadalayi - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : Crl. R. P. No. 415 of 1958
Decided On : 01/28/1959
Advocates Appeared :
V. Bhaskaran Nambiar; For Petitioner Government Pleader; For State

The main legal point established is that, as per the Rules in force in Madras, neither a stamped vakalath nor a vakalath is necessary for the accused in this case.

Headnote:

vakalath - Court Rules - The court held that according to the Rules in force in Madras, neither a stamped vakalath nor a vakalath is necessary for the accused in this case, as clarified by S.72 (2) of the Court Fees Act and Art.28 of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice.

Fact of the Case:

The accused filed a revision petition alleging non-production of a stamped vakalath, which was contested by the public prosecutor.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that, as per the applicable Rules in force in Madras, neither a stamped vakalath nor a vakalath is necessary for the accused in this case.

Issues: The issue revolved around the necessity of a stamped vakalath for the accused in the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on S.72 (2) of the Court Fees Act and Art.28 of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice to clarify that a vakalath is unnecessary for the accused in this case.

Final Decision: The court ordered accordingly, stating that there was no defect in the non-production of a stamped vakalath by the accused.

Judgment :-

1. This is a revision petition by the accused in a case. The alleged defect is non-production of a stamped vakalath. According to the Rules in force in Madras on the subject which are applicable to this case, neither a stamped vakalath nor a vakalath is necessary. S.72 (2) of the Court Fees Act and Art.28 of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice make this clear. According to the decision reported in 1924 M.W.N. 51 a vakalath is unnecessary when an accused files an appeal. The learned public prosecutor who brought these provisions to my notice stated that there is no defect.

2. I order accordingly.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top