Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Appeal No. 54 of 1967, decided on 6th February 1969.
(In the matter of Summons under rule 5(1) Order XIV, Supreme Court Rules, 1956).
Art. 58 read with Supreme Court Rules, 1956, r. 32‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑Counsel and attorney after accepting brief bound to appear and assist Court and if their client no longer interested in contesting appeal, at least to inform Court about same‑Counsel not to accept instructions from client directly‑Non‑appearance of counsel and attorney both‑Warning administered, to be careful in future and not to treat Court with such discourtesy.
S. Abdul Karim, Attorney Supreme Court for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 6th February 1969.
When this appeal was heard on the 11th December 1968, neither the learned counsel nor the Attorney on the record was present. A show‑cause notice was, accordingly, issued to the Attorney to explain his absence. He has appeared today and filed a letter from the learned counsel to show that he was under the impression that the respondents in the appeal were not interested in contesting the same.
The appeal raised an important question of law as to the applicability of processes under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of evacuee properties. This Court ultimately allowed the appeal and held that evacuee premises were not immune from such proceedings. It was incumbent upon the Attorney and the learned counsel concerned to appear to assist this Court after they had accepted the brief or at least to inform the Court that their lay client was no longer interested in contesting the appeal. This would have saved the time of the Court and the Court might not have entered upon a purely academic exercise, if the matter was no longer a live issue.
Under the dual system prevailing in this Court it was no proper for the learned counsel to accept instructions from the client directly. He should have sent the client to the Attorney on record. However, since the Attorney was under a misconception, as most Attorneys of this Court are as to their proper function, we merely record a warning in the present case. Counsel and Attorney should be more careful in future and not treat this Court with such discourtesy.
K. B. A.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer