AMIT SUBHASHRAO BAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) The petitioner, who is a Lawyer by profession, seeks a direction to the jail authorities not to insist for Vakalatnama of prisoner, whenever an Advocate intends to take interview of the prisoner.

(3.) According to the petitioner, whenever an Advocate intends to take interview of the prisoner, the jail authorities insist that the application by the lawyer should be accompanied by Vakalatnama signed by the prisoner. In the additional reply filed on behalf of the jail authorities the said action of the jail authorities is tried to be justified on the ground that Vakalatnama is the proof of the Advocate being bona-fide legal adviser of the prisoner. Hence, it is necessary to insist for Vakalatnama of the prisoner whenever the prisoner's lawyer intends to meet the prisoner.