Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Kuldip Singh v. State Of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana High Court

Sep 4, 1979

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Summary of Opinion — M. Tandon, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Klildip Singh (the petitioner) filed an application under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. 1973, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, seeking permission to take part in the trial in Sessions case No. 21‑SC dated March 30, 1979 (a case concerning the murder of his brother), either personally or through his counsel. The learned Additional Sessions Judge refused that prayer by an order dated July 24, 1979. The petitioner then filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under Sub‑section (2) of Section 301, Cr.P.C., a private person has a right to engage a pleader to conduct or participate in the trial such that the Court's prior permission is required for the pleader to do so.
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge had jurisdiction to refuse the petitioner's application (and whether the refusal on merits was within the Judge's power), i.e., whether the order dated July 24, 1979 was ultra vires.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Sub‑section (2) of Section 301, Cr.P.C. entitles the petitioner to engage a counsel to take part in the trial proceedings before the Additional Sessions Judge.

Additional Sessions Judge's Rationale (as recorded in the opinion)

The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined permission on the grounds that the petitioner was not related to the deceased and that the widow of the deceased had already engaged another senior counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of Section 301, Cr.P.C., distinguishing between Sub‑section (1) and Sub‑section (2):

Sub‑section (1) concerns the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case and their authority to appear and plead without written authority.
Sub‑section (2) allows a private person to instruct a pleader to prosecute a person in any Court, but provides that such pleader must act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor.

On the basis of this text, the court concluded that the role of the Court under Section 301(2) is limited: the Court's permission becomes relevant only if the pleader engaged by a private person seeks to submit written arguments after the evidence is closed. Outside that specific circumstance, the engagement of a pleader by a private person and the pleader's conduct under the Public Prosecutor's directions are matters between the private party, the pleader, and the Public Prosecutor.

Consequently, the court held that an application to the trial court seeking permission to allow a privately engaged counsel to "conduct the trial" or to generally "participate" in the trial was misplaced, because no such permission is required under the statute. The Additional Sessions Judge therefore erred in assuming jurisdiction to refuse permission on the merits.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated July 24, 1979, is set aside as being ultra vires his powers. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. for permission to appear through counsel for conduct of the trial in the Sessions case relating to the murder of Hardev Singh is dismissed as not maintainable.

Implications: The direct effects are:

The refusal order of the Additional Sessions Judge is quashed as beyond his authority.
The petitioner's specific application for judicial permission under Section 301(2) to have his counsel conduct or participate in the trial is dismissed as not maintainable because the statute does not require court permission for such engagement except for the narrow circumstance of submitting written arguments after evidence is closed.

The opinion does not discuss any broader precedent or wider legal consequences beyond the disposition of the application and the setting aside of the impugned order.

Show all summary ...

M. Tandon, J.

1. Klildip Singh petitioner submitted an application under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. 1973, to Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, praying that in Sessions case No. 21-SC dated March 30, 1979, which relates to the murder of his brother, he may be allowed to take part in trial proceedings either personally or through his counsel. The learned Additional Sessions Judge declined the prayer vide order dated July 24, 1979. It is against this order that the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is directed.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Sub-section (2) of Section 301, Cr.P.C. 1973, the petitioner has a right to engage a counsel to take part in the trial proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly declined permission on the ground that the petitioner is not related to the deceased and the widow of the deceased has already engaged another senior counsel to assist the Public Prosecutor.

3. Section 301, Cr.P.C. reads:

301. (1) The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge 'of a case may appear and plead without any written authority before any Court in which that case is under inquiry, trial or appeal.

(2) If in any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor, and may with the permission of the Court, submit written arguments after the evidence is closed in the case.

4. Sub-section (1) of Section 301, deals with the Public Prosecutor and the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case. Under Sub-section (2), a private person can instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, but such pleader can only act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or the Assistant Public Prosecutor. The Court comes in the picture, only if the pleader so engaged wishes to submit written arguments after the evidence is closed. It is thus clear that the Court is unconcerned in the matter of the engagement of a pleader by a private party and of the conduct of the trial by such pleader under the direction of the Public Prosecutor. This matter is exclusively between the party, pleader and the Public Prosecutor, The permission of the Court will, however, be necessary where the pleader engaged by a private party desires to submit written arguments after the conclusion of the case. The application filed by the petitioner to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for permission to allow his counsel to conduct the trial or to participate therein was misplaced. "No such permission to allow his counsel to conduct the trial of the Court sought for by the petitioner is required under law. The learned Additional Sessions. Judge also erred in assuming jurisdiction by refusing permission on merits.

5. In the result, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated July 24, 1979, is set aside being ultra vires his powers. The application filed by the petitioner under Section 301(2), Cr.P.C. for permission to appear through counsel for conduct of the trial in the Sessions case relating to the murder of Hardev Singh is dismissed being, not maintainable.