Skip to content


Kuldip Singh Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1980CriLJ1159
AppellantKuldip Singh
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply..........deceased and the widow of the deceased has already engaged another senior counsel to assist the public prosecutor.3. section 301, cr.p.c. reads:301. (1) the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor in charge 'of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.(2) if in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any court, the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the public prosecutor or assistant public prosecutor, and may with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.4......
Judgment:
ORDER

J.M. Tandon, J.

1. Klildip Singh petitioner submitted an application under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. 1973, to Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, praying that in Sessions case No. 21-SC dated March 30, 1979, which relates to the murder of his brother, he may be allowed to take part in trial proceedings either personally or through his counsel. The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the prayer vide order dated July 24, 1979. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Sub-section (2) of Section 301, Cr.P.C. 1973, the petitioner has a right to engage a counsel to take part in the trial proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly declined permission on the ground that the petitioner is not related to the deceased and the widow of the deceased has already engaged another senior counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor.

3. Section 301, Cr.P.C. reads:

301. (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge 'of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

4. Sub-section (1) of Section 301, deals with the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case. Under Sub-section (2), a private person can instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, but such pleader can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court comes in the picture, only if the pleader so engaged wishes to submit written arguments after the evidence is closed. It is thus clear that the Court is unconcerned in the matter of the engagement of a pleader by a private party and of the conduct of the trial by such pleader under the direction of the Public Prosecutor. This matter is exclusively between the party, pleader and the Public Prosecutor, The permission of the Court will, however, be necessary where the pleader engaged by a private party desires to submit written arguments after the conclusion of the case. The application filed by the petitioner to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for permission to allow his counsel to conduct the trial or to participate therein was misplaced. 'No such permission to allow his counsel to conduct the trial of the Court sought for by the petitioner is required under law. The learned Additional Sessions. Judge also erred in assuming jurisdiction by refusing permission on merits.

5. In the result, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated July 24, 1979, is set aside being ultra vires his powers. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. for permission to appear through counsel for conduct of the trial in the Sessions case relating to the murder of Hardev Singh is dismissed being, not maintainable.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //