D A S SWAMI Vs. KUBENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition filed under Section 439, Cri. P. C. by one D. A. S. Swami in his personal capacity are these. In C. C. 6481 of 1966 on the file of the Second Presidency Magistrate, Madras, on Kuppuswami alias kubendran filed a complaint against Kandaswami Mudaliar under Sections 409 and 403, I. P. C. On 23-4-1966 he prayed for the issue of the summons to the accused for appearance on 30-4-1966. On 30-4-1966 on Sri. T. R. Venkataraman, a lawyer, entered appearance on behalf of the accused and prayed that the absence of the accused for the day might be excused on medical grounds. That was excused. The case was adjourned to 9-5-1966, and that day, being a holiday, it was adjourned again to 20-5-1966. In the meantime the accused executed a power of attorney in favour of D. A. S. Swami. It may be taken that thereby Sri. T. R. Venkataraman was no longer appearing for the accused. The power of attorney is in the following terms:

(2.) IT may be mentioned at once that though in the power of attorney D. A. S. Swami is described as a lawyer and is a person holding a law decree, actually he is not on the rolls as a lawyer. It is necessary to mention this at the outset, because there is a special definition of a "pleader" in Section 4 (1) (r) Cri. P. C. to the following effect:

(3.) SINCE Swami was not an advocate, a vakil or an attorney, he would not be a pleader under the first sub-clause and would require the permission of the court under sub-clause (2) to be a pleader and act for the accused in the case. The power of attorney seems to take note of this and that was why it mentioned section 4 (1) (r ).