HARI KRISHAN Vs. SHRI NAROTAM DUTT SHASTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this miscellaneous petition the respondent, Shri Narotam Datt Shastri, contends that the Advocate General of this State has acted without authority in the present criminal contempt petition by examining the petitioner's witnesses and cross-examining the respondent's witnesses, and he claims that therefore the said proceedings should be struck off the record.

(2.) ON September 26, 1973, Shri Hari Krishan filed the present criminal contempt petition against the respondent alleging that in a speech delivered by the latter on August 8, 1973 at Bilaspur the respondent made certain derogatory observations in respect of a learned Judge of this Court and that, therefore, he should be punished for committing criminal contempt of this Court. By an endorsement of the same date made on the petition, it is apparent that the Advocate General accorded his consent to the institution of the petition. It may be mentioned that while the petition is signed by Shri Hari Krishan, it has been described as having been made through the Advocate General. On the next day, the Advocate General filed a memorandum of appearance which recites that he has been engaged by Shri Hari Krishan to appear for him in the case. The learned Advocate General has throughout appeared on behalf of the petitioner and participated in the proceeding in that capacity. He has not filed any power of attorney.

(3.) IT is contended by Shri Inder Singh, on behalf of the respondent, that the Advocate General is not entitled to appear for the petitioner without a Vakalatnama, and in any event, the petitioner has no statutory right to be represented by him. The Advocate General seeks to sustain his position in the proceeding on the basis of a number of submissions. In the. first place, he says, he is entitled to pursue that proceeding. In the second place, he urges, by virtue of holding the office of Advocate General he is entitled under the Code of Criminal Procedure to function as a Public Prosecutor and prosecute the case, the proceeding being a proceeding governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the third place, he contends, he has been authorised by the Governor under Article 165 (2) of the Constitution to represent the State in a contempt proceeding. Fourthly, he urges, the memorandum of appearance is sufficient to enable him to appear in the case and no Vakalatnama is necessary.