SUNIL PURI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question raised for consideration is as to "Whether a lawyer engaged by the first informant has a right of audience while opposing a ball application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure."

(2.) The brief facts are that apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 16/2006, registered at Police Station Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) for commission of the offence punishable under Section 409 of the IPC, the applicant has field this application u/S. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr. P.C. or Code) for grant of anticipatory bail. It is stated that the first informant is Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur. After filing of this application, the first informant, by M.Cr. P. No. 566/2006 is seeking permission to assist prosecution and to make objection to' the bail application. A reply to the said application has been filed by the applicant and the same is opposed. During the course of arguments on 2-5-2006, learned counsel for the applicant raised serious objections contending that the counsel engaged by the first informant has no locus standi to independently advance oral arguments and oppose the bail application. A joint prayer was made at the Bar to decide this point first and then to decide the bail application on merits. It is in this manner, the matter has cropped up for hearing on a short point referred to above.

(3.) Referring to the provisions of Section 301, Cr. P.C. learned Senior Counsel for the applicant argued that on the analogy of the limited right under the aforesaid section, the role of the private counsel engaged by the first informant in a matter under Section 438, Cr. P.C. must also be limited to act under the directions of the public prosecutor and the counsel so engaged has no right of audience and he cannot advance oral arguments independently. He also referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand (1999) 7 SCC 467. He further argued that looking to the language of Section 301(2) Cr. P.C., about assisting the public prosecutor and also about submission of the written arguments, there is hardly any scope to hold that the lawyer so engaged has a right of audience or has a right to address the Court orally at the time of hearing of the case on merits. He referred to the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the matter of In Re, Rakhan Ojha alias Rakhal Chandra Ojha reported in 1988 Cri LJ 278. Supporting his above contention, learned counsel also referred to a decision rendered by 'the single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the matter of Smt. Indu Bala v. Delhi Administration, 1991 Cri LJ 1774. He further referred to the decision of the single Bench of the Madras High Court rendered in the matter of P. S. Saravana- bhavanandam v. S. Murugaiyyan, 1996 Cri LJ 1540. Lastly, he also relied on the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Kuldip Singh v. State of Haryana, 1980 Cri LJ 1159.