O R D E R

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 362 read with 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :

“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records from trial Court and re-assess the propriety, legality and infirmity in its order dated 04.08.2020 and pass appropriate order deemed fit and just by recalling the order for expunging the remarks and thus render justice for a free and fair trial guaranteed under the Constitution of India.”

2. M.Gopinath/A-1, who is the petitioner herein, is facing a prosecution in C.C.No.29 of 2017 before the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai, along with others, for the offences under Section 120-B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for having acquired assets disproportionate to his known source of income. The discharge petition filed by Gopinath along with others, came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 04.08.2020, challenging which, he, along with other accused, filed revision petitions before this Court. To be more specific, Gopinath filed Crl.R.C.No.907 of 2020, in which, he was represented by Mr.N.Jayachander, Advocate, who, in turn engaged Mr.A.Ramesh, Senior Advocate, to argue the matter before this Court (PNPJ). This Court, heard Mr.A.Ramesh and Mr.K.Srinivasan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI cases and by a detailed common order dated 18.12.2020, dismissed the revision petitions with a further direction to the trial Court to proceed with the trial of the case in accordance with law. Thereafter, Gopinath has filed the present petition with the above prayer.

3. The Registry entertained a doubt with regard to the very maintainability of this petition, in the light of Section 362 Cr.P.C. and therefore, the matter was posted for hearing on 08.12.2021, for deciding the question of maintainability.

4. This Court heard Mr.Gopinath, Party-in-person and perused the materials placed on record.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Gopinath appeared as party-

in-person via video conferencing and he was found wearing a black coat and an Advocate's neck band. When this Court asked him as to how, he can appear as party-in-person wearing the dress prescribed for an Advocate, he stated that he has been enrolled as an Advocate and therefore, it is not illegal for him to wear the dress prescribed for an Advocate. Therefore, it has become necessary for this Court to state the legal position in this regard.

6. Section 49(1) (gg) of the Advocates Act, 1961 states as follows :

"49.General power of the Bar Council of India to make rules (1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act and, in particular, such rules may prescribe (gg) the form or dresses or robes to be worn by advocates, having regard to the climatic conditions, appearing before any Court or tribunal"

Accordingly, the Bar Council of India has framed rules Section 49(1) (gg) of the Advocates Act entitled "Form of dresses or robes to be worn by Advocates".

The said rule is as under :

"Advocates appearing in the Supreme Court, High Courts, Subordinate Courts, Tribunals or Authorities shall wear the following as part of their dress which shall be sober and dignified.

I. Advocates -- (a) A black buttoned-up coat, chapkan, achkan, black sherwani and white bands with Advocates' Gown.

(b) A black open breast coat, white shirt, white collar, stiff or soft and white bands with Advocates' Gowns."

7. A conjoint reading of Section 49(1)(gg) of the Advocates Act and the aforesaid rule that has been framed by the Bar Council of India shows that a particular dress has been prescribed by the Bar Council of India to distinguish an Advocate from a party-in-person. A party-in-person, just because he is an Advocate, cannot take advantage of it and appear with the dress prescribed for an Advocate in a Court or Tribunal.

8. Section 49(1)(gg)