STATE Vs. ANGREZ SINGH ETC.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Sessions Judge, Jullundur, was seized of Sessions Case No. 201 of 1976 (State v. Angrez Singh and another) in which the accused persons were being tried for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code. One Shri Ram Pal Singh Gill, Advocate had originally filed his power of attorney on their behalf. On February 1, 1977 another power of attorney signed by three advocates, namely Sarvshri Sarabjit Singh, B.S. Bassi and B.S. Randhawa, was filed. On this power of attorney Shri Ram Pal Singh Gill had given a note that be had no objection against the appearance of Shri H.S. Sandhu, Senior Advocate, to defend the accused persons. It looks that Sarvshri Sarabjit Singh, B.S. Bassi and B.S. Randhawa, Advocates, had been engaged to assist Shri H.S. Sandhu. Mr. Sandhu was also present in Court on that date. The case was adjourned to February, 18, 1977, on which date the learned Sessions Judge was on leave and the case was taken up on March 1, 1977, in the presence of Mr. H.S. Sandhu the learned Senior Advocate. It was then adjourned to March 11, 1977. On that day by an ostensibly well -reasoned order, the learned Sessions Judge held that the power of attorney filed by Shri Sarabjit Singh was defective in as much as the names of Sarvshri B.S. Bassi and B.S. Randhawa were added afterwards and since they were not properly appointed advocates to instruct Shri Sandhu the later could not cross -examine the prosecution witnesses unless and until he filed his own power of attorney.

(2.) WHEN this matter came to my notice at Jullundur at the time of the yearly inspection of the District Courts, I initiated suo motu action and served a notice upon the local public Prosecutor to show cause why this order should not be set aside. The learned Public Prosecutor appeared before me on April 22, 1977, and stated that he was not in a position to argue this matter at such a short notice. Since 1 was unlikely to prolong my stay at Jullundur, this case was ordered to be put up before me at Chandigarh.

(3.) TWO points arise in this case. Firstly whether the learned Sessions Judge could hold that the power of attorney filed by Shri Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, was defective at this stage or not and, secondly whether the Senior Advocate while cross -examining prosecution witness acts on behalf of the accused within the meaning of the Explanation appearing under rule 1(a) in Chapter I of Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.