9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 520 - SC - Companies LawWhether application under Section 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution could be filed by power of attorney holders of heirs of the complainant? Held that - In the present case, neither heirs of the complainant filed petition under Section 302 of the Code to continue the prosecution nor any permission was sought by them from the competent court that they should be allowed to continue the prosecution through their power of attorney holders, rather the prayer was made by the power of attorney holders, which is not permissible under law. This being the position, we are of the view that the trial court was not justified in allowing the petitions under Section 302 of the Code and the High Court has committed an error in confirming the said order which is liable to be set aside and petitions under Section 302 of the Code are fit to be dismissed giving liberty to the heirs either to make application themselves before the court concerned to continue the prosecution or apply to the court to grant permission to them to authorize the power of attorney holders to continue the prosecution on their behalf. In the result, the appeals are allowed, impugned orders are set aside and the petitions under Section 302 of the Code filed before the trial court are rejected giving liberty to the heirs of the complainant to file fresh applications under Section 302 of the Code.
Issues:
- Application of Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by power of attorney holders to continue prosecution. - Interpretation of the term "pleader" in Section 2(q) of the Code. - Legal position regarding representation by power of attorney holders in criminal proceedings. Analysis: The Supreme Court heard appeals against a Karnataka High Court judgment upholding a lower court's order allowing power of attorney holders of heirs to continue prosecution under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The original complainant's heirs, residing in the USA, had appointed power of attorney holders to continue the prosecution after the complainant's demise. The accused contested this, leading to the appeals. The main contention was whether power of attorney holders had the right to file applications under Section 302 to continue prosecution, as argued by the appellant's counsel. The Court examined the definition of "pleader" in Section 2(q) of the Code, which includes both legal practitioners and other persons appointed with the court's permission to act in proceedings. A precedent case established that a party could appoint a non-advocate to represent them in court, subject to court permission. However, in the present case, the heirs did not file the applications themselves, but the power of attorney holders did. The Court emphasized that a power of attorney holder cannot act as a pleader in criminal proceedings unless the concerned party secures court permission for such representation. Referring to a previous case, the Court clarified that under Section 205 of the Code, an accused could be represented by a pleader, who could be a legal practitioner or another person with court permission. Similarly, under Section 302, a party entitled to continue prosecution could seek representation through a pleader. The Court concluded that the trial court erred in allowing the petitions filed by power of attorney holders without the heirs seeking court permission for such representation. Therefore, the High Court's decision upholding the lower court's order was deemed incorrect. In the final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders, and rejected the petitions filed by power of attorney holders under Section 302. The Court granted the heirs the liberty to file fresh applications themselves or seek court permission to authorize their power of attorney holders to continue the prosecution on their behalf. This detailed analysis clarifies the legal position on the representation of parties in criminal proceedings by power of attorney holders and the necessity of court permission for such representation.
|
