- (1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Dist-rict, on a complaint by one Dola under sec. 323 read with sec. 504 I. P. C. against Chhagan and others. Mr. Prahlad Rai Sharma, Extra Magistrate, First Class, Jaipur, framed charges under sec. 323 IPC and adjourned the case to the 4th of April, 1952 for re-cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. On that date the accused persons appeared along with Mr. Narain Behari, an Advocate of this Court. Before the learned Advocate commenced re-cross-examination of the witnesses, the Magistrate stopped him from doing so on the ground that the power of attorney which had been filed did not bear his signatures. The Magistrate directed the Advocate to file a fresh Vakalatnama in order to enable him to proceed with the re-examination of the prosecution witnesses. A revision application was moved by the accused before the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, who has made this reference with the recommendation that the order of the Magistrate was illegal and the Magistrate be directed to permit Mr. Narain Behari to proceed with the case without filing any fresh Vakalatnama.
(2.) AN explanation was invited from Mr. Prahlad Rai Sharma who has not been able to refer to any provisions of law in support of his order but he has said that he followed the practice of the court in asking Mr. Narain Behari to file a fresh Vakalatnama. Under sec. 340 Cr. P. C. any person accused of an offence before a criminal court or against whom proceedings are instituted under the Code in any such court is entitled as of right to be defended by a pleader. The Code does not lay down the procedure for the filing of Vakalatnama. In re : Muni Ram Reddi (1) (9 Cr. L. J. 305) it has been held that if a pleader, representing a party in any criminal proceeding, does not file in court a Vakalatnama from his client be shall be required to file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed to appear for the party whom he represents, but where the party is present in person along with his vakil even that is not necessary. Similarly in Subda Santal vs. Emperor (2) (A. I. R. 1926 Patna, 296.) it has been observed that no appointment in writing is necessary in order to entitled an advocate or a vakil to act for an accused person in criminal cases. In the present case the accused persons were present in court along with their advocate. A written power of attorney had also been filed by the accused persons authorising Mr. Narain Behari to plead on their behalf. Mr. Narain Behari was also present and he wanted to re-cross-examine the prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused persons. Under such circumstances there was no reason for the learned Magistrate to have raised an objection for the filing of a fresh Vakalatnama. The signatures of the learned advocate had not been subscribed on the Vakalatnama but this did not render it ineffective. The action taken by the Magistrate is not warranted by law. The reference is therefore accepted, the order of the Magistrate is set aside and he is directed to proceed with the case and to allow Mr. Narain Behari to plead on behalf of the accused persons without filing fresh Vakalatnama. .;