By Court.- The office has raised objection that learned counsel for the appellants has filed the power on behalf of appellant no. 5-John Tigga @ Johan Tigga only and has not filed the power on behalf of rest of the appellants.

2. It has been submitted that such objection has been raised by the office in view of the order of the Division Bench, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 272 of 2002 (Binod Kumar Lal and another Vs. State of Jharkhand) on 6th August, 2008, wherein the Division Bench has observed that the practice of filing/giving no objection to a counsel to appear on behalf of some of the appellants only is deprecated. Then this Court held 'no doubt, if a counsel wants to withdraw his appearance from a case, he can be allowed but he can't be allowed to retain power for one person and give no objection to any other counsel for another person'. In addition to above, a direction has been issued to the office, obviously to the Registry of the High Court, not to accept such Interlocutory Application or Vakalatnama in future. Learned counsel for appellant no. 5 submitted that order dated 6th August, 2008 is per-incurium, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.D. Saxena Vs. Balram Prasad Sharma, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 264, as by this order, right of litigant has been curtailed in choosing the advocate.

3. In this case, appellant no. 5 alone has decided to engage the present counsel and gave his power to appear in this appeal on behalf of appellant no. 5. The appellant no. 5 has also moved application for suspension of sentence through the present counsel and if, the appellant no. 5 will not be represented through the counsel of his choice, it will violate his fundamental right. It is also submitted that order dated 6th August, 2008 is not based on any legal provision, rather it runs to the contrary to the constitutional provision of accused's right to get defended through counsel of his choice as well as contrary to the provisions made in section 303 Cr.P.C. which recognizes the right of a person, against whom proceedings are instituted to be defended, which specifically provides that such accused shall have right to be defended by a Pleader of his choice.

4. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the judgments of R.D. Saxena's case(supra) and the reasons given in the order dated 6th August, 2008, passed in Cr. Appeal No. 272 of 2002.

5. The order dated 6th August, 2008, passed in the case of Binod Kumar Lal & Anr. prohibits not only the litigant from getting the assistance of the advocate of his choice but also prohibits advocates from appearing for the litigant who has engaged the advocate and paid him his remuneration and has faith in him. Above order provides for keeping the advocate by litigant against his wish if other appellants will not change advocate of their choice. The said order is a direction to the High Court registry not to accept any Interlocutory Application or Vakalatnama in future in a case where one of the appellants or few of the appellants out of several appellants engages/engage another advocate and where the advocates file the power after obtaining the no objection from the counsel who has filed the power earlier in the matter. The advocates have been directed to not to give consent for one out of several appellants and if he gives permission to another counsel to appear for one as the appellant then he has to give consent for all appellants even if such appellants do not want to change the advocate.

6. So far as first issue is concerned with respect to the right of the litigant in the matter of choosing the advocate is concerned, we are of the view that before the Division Bench, neither the statutory provision like section 303 Cr.P.C., nor the judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the case of R.D. Saxena were placed and brought to the notice of the court. Since it is a criminal matter and the procedure is prescribed by the statu