T.C.Mathai & Anr. Vs. The District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala (1999) 3SCC 614. Date of Judgement: 31.03.1999.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait.   He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions.    Session Court:- Permission was declined, as the request for such permission did not emanate from the respondent-couple themselves. There upon appellant moved the High Court of  Kerala under Article 226 of the Constitution for issuance of a direction to the Sessions Judge concerned to grant the permission sought for.   Single Judge of the High Court:- dismissed the Original Petition against which appellant filed a writ appeal.   Division Bench of the High Court:- also dismissed.    And now the appeal before the Supreme Court to seek the same permission.    ISSUE:   Can the appellant become a Pleader for the Respondent couple on the basis of “Power of Attorney.”   Contentions of the Appellant:   The appellant submitted that he is the duly appointed attorney of the Respondent-couple by virtue of an instrument of “power of attorney” executed by them and on its strength he contended that his right to represent the respondent-couple in the Court would be governed by the said authority in the instrument.   Observations of the Supreme Court:-   The Court interpreted Section 2(q) of Cr.P.C.: “2(q) ‘Pleader’ when used with reference to any proceeding in any Court, means a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practise in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceedings”.   As per above definition if the pleader is “any other person”, it is essential requisite that such person should have been appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceedings.   It is not necessary that the “pleader” so appointed should be the power-of-attorney holder of the party in the case. What seems to be a condition precedent is that his appointment should have been preceded by grant permission of the Court.   But the person proposed to be appointed by the party is not such a qualified person as an Advocate, the Court has first to satisfy itself whether the expected assistance would be rendered by that person.   Section 2 of the “Power of Attorney Act” cannot override the specific provision of a statute which requires that a particular Act should be done by a party-in-person. For that reason when the Code requires the appearance of an accused in a Court it is no compliance with it if a power-of-attorney holder appears for him. So the contention of the appellant based on the instrument of power-of-attorney is of no avail in this case.   DECISION OF SUPREME COURT:   Court held that:   Legally qualified persons who are authorised to practise in the Courts by the authority prescribed under the statute concerned can appear for parties in the proceedings pending against them. An agent cannot become a “pleader” for the party in criminal proceedings, unless the party secures permission from the Court to appoint him to act in such proceedings.   The respondent-couple have not even moved for such a permission and hence no occasion has arisen so far to consider that aspect. Court dismissed the appeal.

 

 

UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE IN SHORT: The appellant claims to be the power-of-attorney holder of a couple (husband and wife) living in Kuwait. He sought permission of the Sessions Court, Trivandrum to appear and plead on behalf of the said couple who are arrayed as respondents in a criminal revision petition filed before the said Sessions. Writ was filed against this order which was also dismissed by single bench thereafter by division bench also. Therefore matter came before Supreme court who also dismissed the appeal and held that legally qualified persons who are authorised to practise in the Courts by the authority prescribed under the statute concerned can appear for parties in the proceedings pending against them. An agent cannot become a “pleader” for the party in criminal proceedings, unless the party secures permission from the Court to appoint him to act in such proceedings.