Delhi District Court
Satya Narain vs . Surender Kumar Sharma on 6 September, 2019
-1-
Cr Rev. No. 187/19
Satya Narain vs. Surender Kumar Sharma
06.09.2019
Present : Petitioner - by Sh. Prabhakar Naik, Adv.
Respondent in person.
Heard. Perused the TCR.
ORDER
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Ld. MM dated 16.05.2019 in complaint case no. 7987/16 on the files of Ld. Mahila Court- 03, Shahdara, Delhi. By the impugned order, the Ld. MM had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner who is the accused in the complaint case. In the application, it is sought that the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the complainant be rejected.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant is an advocate by profession and he appears in the court as a client as well as an advocate which is impermissible as per the rulings in Mahipal Singh vs. State of U.P. of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Indian Kanoon Doc. 12670439, R. Muthukrishnan vs. Union of India Indian Kanoon Doc.61168833 and Gohel Himmat Singh vs. Patel Motilal Indian Kanoon Doc.1606683. In all the above rulings, it is held that an advocate cannot be a litigant as well as an advocate to appear in the court in the dual role.
3. On the other hand, the respondent submits that he never appeared in the dual role and he never wore the bands in the proceedings. At the same time, he submits that he has got every right to engage a counsel and he has engaged a counsel Sh. Praveen Gaur, Adv.
4. Considering the nature of the order, this court fears the nature of the order falling under the category of an interlocutory order, barring the -2- powers of revision. The petitioner relied on AIR 1977 SC 2185 in Amarnath vs. State of Haryana. It is submitted that the right of the petitioner gets terminated at one stage and the interim order be treated as intermediary and revision is maintainable.
5. Having given careful thought to the submissions, the only question that arises is, "Whether the impugned is opposed to law, improper and incorrect?"
6. The Ld. MM noted that the vakalatnama filed on 13.04.2018 is objected by the accused only to delay the proceedings and that the complainant being the master of his case can engage any lawyer irrespective of the fact whether the complainant is an advocate or not.
7. After going through the impugned order, this court finds no illegality for the reasons that :
(a) The complainant undertakes that he will not appear in the court with the advocates' robe or band.
(b) The complainant is having the constitutional right to engage a counsel of his choice which is guaranteed under the special law i.e. Advocates Act, 1961.
8. However, it is seen from the trial court records that the format of vakalatnama reveals that Sh. S.K. Sharma who is the complainant appoints 'S.K. Sharma & Company' of which there are three advocates disclosing the names as complainant himself, Sh. Y.K. Gaur and Sh. P.K. Gaur as advocates. At the specified place disclosing the identity of the executant of the vakalatnama and the name of the advocate, the respondent had signed at both the places which is incorrect. The same is verified through the trial court records. In the circumstances, this court is to conclude that there is a curable defect in the format of the vakalatnama accepted by the trial court though there is no impropriety or illegality, a -3- curable defect had crept in. Accordingly, the same needs to be allowed to be corrected. Hence, the following :
ORDER The revision petition stands dismissed. However, the Ld. MM- 03 may accept fresh vakalatnama of Sh. Y.K. Gaur and Sh. Praveen Gaur, if they are again engaged by the complainant but not in the format as filed in the trial court records. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with TCR. Digitally signed by A S JAYACHANDRA File be consigned to record room. AS JAYACHANDRA Date:
2019.09.06 15:36:36 -0400 (A.S. Jayachandra) District & Sessions Judge Shahdara District, Delhi/06.09.2019