PRAVINBHAI GAMBHICHAND SHAH Vs. NENSHI V. KHIRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The urgency as urged on behalf of the applicants is on account of non -bailable warrants issued to the petitioners by the impugned order.

(2.) The challenge in this application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to an order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 61st Court, Kurla, Mumbai. By the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has issued non -bailable warrants against accused nos.2 to 21 and 23 to 28 in the proceedings of Private Complaint Case No.243/SS/2005, to secure their presence before the Court on 5.1.2015. The reason for issuance of non -bailable warrant being that the Junior Advocate attached to the chamber of Shri.H.K.Prem does not have vakalatnama to represent the applicants.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicants has submitted that initially vakalatnama in the private complaint case was filed on behalf of the applicants -accused by Advocate Shri.H.K.Prem. It is submitted that the junior of Advocate Shri.H.K.Prem, Advocate Shri.Vineet R.Randive was attending the proceedings of this private complaint case from the year 2013. On behalf of the complainant an objection was raised that Shri.Randive does not have vakalatnama to represent the accused. Shri.Randive, learned Advocate had urged before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that as he was attending the matter as Junior of Advocate Shri.H.K.Prem and was instructed by him, he however submitted that nonetheless he would procure vakalatnama from the concerned non -applicants/accused and would file the same. On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that vakalatnama on behalf of three accused was accordingly obtained and that the learned Advocate was in the process of obtaining vakalatnama from the other accused as many of them were not immediately available. It is submitted that some of them were old and some of them were dead. However, by the impugned order the learned Trial Judge at the instance of the complainant has issued non -bailable warrants against the applicants being accused nos.2 to 21 and 23 to 28 as according to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Shri.Randive was appearing without vakalatnama. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that it was not the case that these accused (applicants in this application) had discharged Advocate H.K.Prem, and his vakalatnama continued to be valid to represent the said accused. My attention is also drawn to an order dated 27.3.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in criminal application No.7019 of 2005 wherein the following observations were made dispensing the presence of the applicants at the trial: -