RAJIV A JOSHI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Rajiv A. Joshi, who appears as party-in-person for the prayer inter alia that the order passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Sessions Court No.12, Bhadra, Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.281 of 2011 dated 06.08.2011 and also the order passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.9 in Criminal Case No.5869/2010 (Old Case No.983/2003) dated 09.05.2011 may be quashed and set aside on the grounds stated in this petition. It is also prayed that appropriate relief may also be granted.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner, party-in-person, who was original complainant, had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the family friend, Ms.Smita Patel may be permitted to remain present and make submissions on his behalf in the said trial. The said application was not entertained and rejected by the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 09.05.2011 after considering the submissions and the provisions of Section 32 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which was challenged by the petitioner-original complainant by way of Criminal Revision Application No.281 of 2011 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad. However, after considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the provisions of the Advocates Act, the Sessions Court rejected the said Revision Application vide impugned order dated 06.08.2011, which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) The submission has been made by the party-in-person, who is present in the Court with Ms.Smita Patel, who has been permitted to address the Court on behalf of the petitioner-party-in-person. She has referred to the details and submitted that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact as well as the judgment of this Court reported in case of Jaymal Thakore V/s Charity Commissioner, Gujarat State & Ors., 2001 3 GLR 2124. It was submitted that the petitioner in that case was representing the client as recognized agent and, therefore, it was objected and the permission was not granted. However, in the facts of the present case, the petitioner is present on his behalf and Ms.Smita Patel as a family member is seeking permission from the Court to assist him and, therefore, the ratio of the said judgment would not have any applicability. She has also referred to the provisions of the Advocates Act and submitted that it is not a professional brief which she would be arguing on behalf of someone but she is seeking permission to assist the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person in the capacity as a next friend and, therefore, the provisions would not apply. She has also referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of T.C. Mathai & Anr. V/s (The) District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 1999 1 GLH 829. She has emphasized the observation made in this judgment in Para No.10 that if the person is not an Advocate, permission is required but non-advocate can also represent and assist the Court.