BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties. This is an application in revision by Sardar Bhagwan Singh, Advocate of the Court, from the order of Mr. D.D. Upadhya, Magistrate 1st Class, Ajmer, restraining him from appearing in that Court to defend a certain criminal case against Vishnu Chandra and others. There was a certain criminal case pending trial in that Court, and one of the accused in that case engaged the services of the applicant to cross-examine certain witnesses u/S. 856 of the Cr. P. C. The trial Court on an application filed on behalf of the prosecution restrained the applicant from appearing in that Court to defend that case The application in revision is from this order of that Court.

(2.) The application filed on behalf of the prosecution before the trial Court is altogether silent as to under what provision of the law that Court was expected to refuse the right of audience to the applicant. The Public Prosecutor was asked to explain this point by the trial Court, and could not explain it. The Public Prosecutor here also was unable to show the law under which the applicant had been refused the right of audience by the trial Court.

(3.) The order of the trial Court appears to rest just on the two rulings as cited in Ramakrishna Pillai V/s. Balakrishna Aiyar,1921 AIR(Mad) 666 and Veerappachettiar V/s. Sundaresa Sastrigal,1925 AIR(Mad) 1201. The perusal of these two rulings shows that they apply to cases on the civil side and not to cases on the criminal side, and appear to be based on the inherent powers as vested on any subordinate Court on the civil side u/S. 151, Civil P. C. There appears to be no such inherent powers vested on any subordinate Court on the criminal side. Such powers, if at all, could only be exercised by the High Court u/S. 561A, Cr. P. C. It accordingly means that any subordinate Court on the civil side for the ends of justice may refuse audience to an advocate or a pleader in a particular case, but no subordinate Court on the criminal side could do so. It is, of course, open to a party in such cases to move the High Court direct for action u/S, 661A, Cr. P. C.