Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh vs Kothakapu Etreddy Venkata Reddi And ... on 8 March, 1960

Shyamasree Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 12 February, 2025

In the case of Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kothakapu Etreddy Venkata Reddi rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Sri Rama Rao, the Public Prosecutor, had advised in the capacity of the Public Prosecutor in the same case against the accused persons in which he later on appeared for some of the accused persons. In the facts of that case, the learned Court directed Sri Rama Rao not to appear for any of the accused in that case as well as to withdraw his appearance from that case. The facts of the said case is clearly distinguishable from the present case.
Tripura High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gohel Himatsingh Lakhaji vs Patel Motilal Garbardas And Ors. on 26 March, 1965

7. A similar question arose before the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court consisting of Jaganmohan Reddy and Kumarayya JJ. in Public Prosecutor v. Venkata Reddi . There the case of all the accused arose out of the same transaction and with respect to the same incident all of them had been charged together. In respect of the accused who were acquitted the Public Prosecutor had advised the State Government to file an appeal and in fact he had filed appeals on behalf of the State against the acquittals of some of the accused. He had also filed a memo of appearance on behalf of the State in an appeal filed by the convicted accused. However as his engagement as a Public Prosecutor had been terminated before the matter came up for hearing he sought to appear for the convicted accused in the appeals filed by them and it was held by Jaganmohan Reddy J. that it could not be permitted. At page 109 it was held:
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Chougule M.K. And Others vs Vinodkumar V. Kanabar And Anothers on 26 September, 1997

12. The reading of the above provision, itself shows that the reliance placed by Mr. Kanabar on the said rule is absolutely misplaced. It is not the case of the complainant here that the B.M.C. lawyer had advised or appeared or drafted any pleading or acted in any way or appeared for the opposite party i.e. the complainant in this case and, therefore, above provision would not be applicable. He then placed reliance on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Venkata Reddi, reported in 1961(1) Cri.L.J. 356. In that case the question was about the Public Prosecutor appearing to defend the accused after he ceased to be Public Prosecutor and the Court held that even if he had filed simple appearance on behalf of the State there was no bar to appear for the accused after he ceased to be the Public Prosecutor and the bar of professional ethics would stand only in case the Public Prosecutor had taken some further steps or done anything on behalf of the opposite party i.e. the State as a Public Prosecutor that he could not have subsequently appeared to defend the accused against whom he had appeared on behalf of the State.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Chenna Reddi Veera Reddi And Anr. vs Chillakuru Rama Chandra Reddi And Anr. on 21 March, 1963

3. Mr. Subba Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondent takes his stand on Public Prosecifior v. Venkata Reddi and contends that the Court, in order to maintain the highest traditions of the bar and the profession, should preclude the advocates from appearing for the opposite party if that is likely to embarrass the advocate or raise a suspicion in the mind of the client with respect to the conduct of erstwhile advocate or that it is not gentlemanly conduct or that it Is improper to do so, or the circumstances are such from which an inference of importing of confidential nature of information can be raised. The observations of the learned Judges in the above cited cases, certainly should serve as guiding principles for the members of the profession. But now since the coming into force of Advocates Act the sitiration has changed, these principles should be followed by the advocates themselves and acted upon without any direction of the Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1