NARAYANAMURTHY Vs. SUBBULAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Ss.482 and 483, Crl. P.C, praying to direct the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, not to insist on the counsel instructed by the petitioner to appear on his behalf in M.C.No. 189 of 1987 on his file to file a vakalatnama, but to accept a memo of appearance properly and duly presented before progress of further proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner Narayanamurthy has filed the affidavit to the effect that he had engaged Shri K.S. Dinakaran and his Junior Thiru T.K. Ravikumar, Thiru N. Umachandran and Thiru B. Vasudevan and had duly instructed them to appear for him in M.C.No. 189 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras. Thiru T.K. Ravikumar, one of the Junior counsel, has filed the affidavit stating that he along with his senior Thiru K.S. Dinakaran and other Juniors of the office have been engaged and duly instructed by Thiru Narayanamurthy, the respondent in M.C.No.189 of 1987 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, and other proceedings initiated by one Subbulakshmi, shown as respondent herein, claiming maintenance for herself and her two minor children staling that she is wife of Narayanamurthi and the children were born out of lawful wedlock with him. Narayanamurthi was saved with summons directing him to appear before the Court on 8th December, 1987 in M.C. No. 189 of 1987. On 8th December, 1987 the counsel along with the petitioner appeared before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in M.C. No.189 of 1987 and he had kept ready a memo of appearance duly stamped and signed by his senior Thiru K.S. Dinakaran and other Juniors including himself and in that memo of appearance they had declared that they had been duly instructed to appear for the respondent in M.C. No.189 of 1987. Atabout 11 a.m. on 8th December, 1987 when the case was called the parties were present in Court and on behalf of Narayanamurthi the respondent in M.C. No.189 of 1987 the memo of appearance was presented by him to the Court Clerk-cum-Interpreter, who, stated that a vakalat should be filed and not a memo, of appearance and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate. THE learned Magistrate after perusing the memo of appearance observed that the proceedings being civil in nature only vakalat duly signed by the party and in conformity with the rules relating to vakalat must be filed and a memo of appearance would not be entertained.

(3.) THE affidavit further proceeds dealing with the definition of 'Judicial Proceedings' in Ss.2(i) and 6, Crl. P.C. dealing with the classes of criminal Courts and petitions under S.125, Crl. P.C, being filed in the Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts including that of the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the procedure prescribed under S.126, Crl. P.C It is further stressed that a line of distinction will have to be kept in mind regarding proceedings being in the nature of a civil proceeding and it being one under the criminal statute with rights and liabilities arising out of it entrusted for decision to the Courts categorised as criminal Courts in contra distinction with civil Courts. Hence it has been stated that it will be erroneous to insist on filing vakalat which would have the sanction of law and the observation that filing of a vakalat was not prohibited can lead to disastrous results if prohibitions alone were to be taken into consideration as permissibilities. Hence it has been prayed to direct the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not to in-sist on the counsel instructed by Thiru Narayanamurthi to appear in the said proceedings to file a vakalatnama but to accept a memo of appearance properly and duly presented before progress of further proceedings.