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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 281

N.KRISHNASWAMY REDDY
M. D. Sigamani – Appellant
Versus
Vidyasagaran – Respondent


Advocates:
Petitioner in person.
The Public Prosecutor, for State.

Order.

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, M. D. Sigamani, against the order of the District Magistrate, Coimbatore, permitting the Additional Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore, Sri R. S. Gopal to appear for accused 13, and Assistant Public Prosecutor-I for the Jail Department accused and Assistant Public Prosecutor-II for the other police accused, in C. C. 145 of 1966 on his file. The accused in the said case appear to be officials.

So far as the appearance of the Additional Public Prosecutor is concerned, I do not think that any permission is required for him to appear before the District Magistrate, if the Government permit him to do so during the period he serves as Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. An Additional Public Prosecutor by virtue of his position as a Public Prosecutor appointed by the Government for a specific period and for specific Courts does not cease to be an Advocate. There is no prohibition for an Advocate to appear for any party in any case if he can satisfy the Court before which he appears that he is an Advocate as defined under the Advocates Act.

So far as the Assistant Public Prosecutor-I and Assistant Public Prosecutor-II are con



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