AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1019 "Harishankar Rastogi v.

Girdhari Sharma"
= 1978 CRI. L. J. 778
Coram : 1 V. R. KRISHNA IYER , J. (in Chambers)
Criminal Misc. Petn. No. 506 of 1978, in Transfer Petn. (Cri) No. 4 of 1978 D/-13 -3 -1978.
Harishankar Rastogi , Petitioner v. Girdhari Sharma and another, Respondents.
Advocates Act (25 of 1961) , S.32 - ADVOCATE - Party to criminal proceeding seeking permission of
Court to be represented by a private person who is not an advocate within S. 2 (a) - Discretion of Court
to grant permission - Matters to be considered.
Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.2(q) .
It is open to a person, who is party to a proceeding, to get himself represented by a non-advocate in a
particular instance or case. (Para 2)
A pleader, by definition, includes any person other than one authorised by law to practise in a court if
he is appointed with the permission of the Court, to act in a particular proceeding. The Supreme Court's
power may well
@page-SC1020
be exercised in regulating audience before it in tune with the spirit of S. 2 (q) of the Criminal Procedure
Code. (Para 2)
A private person, who is not an advocate, has no right to barge into court and claim to argue for a party.
He must get the prior permission of the Court, for which the motion must come from the party himself.
It is open to the Court to grant or withhold permission in its discretion. In fact the Court may, even after
grant of permission, withdraw it halfway through if the representative proves himself reprehensible.
The antecedents, the relationship, the reason for requisitioning the services of the private person and a
variety of other circumstances must be gathered before grant or refusal of permission. (Para 4)

AIR 1966 RAJASTHAN 170 (Vol. 53, C. 40)"Govind Narain v. Chhoti Devi"

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Coram : 1 JAGAT NARAYAN , J. ( Single Bench )
Govind Narain v. Suit, Chhoti Devi .
Civil Revn. Nos. 521 of 1964, and 18 of 1965, D/-21 -9 -1965. against order of Dist, J., Jaipur, D/-12
-12 -1964.
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.3 R.1 , R.2 , R.4 and S.119 - ADVOCATE - WITNESS - CIVIL
PROCEDURE - Examining and cross-examining of witness is 'acting" and not 'pleading' - Recognized
agent is, therefore, entitled to examine and cross-examine witness.
A recognized agent of a party is entitled to examine and cross-examine witnesses, as examining and
cross-examining a witness is acting and not 'pleading". To plead means to argue in support of a cause.
In other words 'pleading" only means addressing the court. An examination of the language of Section
119 of the Code goes to show that the authors of the Code made a distinction between addressing the
court and examining witnesses in court. If it were the intention of the framers of the Code that no one
except the party himself or his pleader should examine or cross-examine witnesses, this intention
would have been expressed by the use of appropriate words. For literally speaking examining and
cross-examining witnesses is 'acting' and not "pleading". Under order 3 rule 4(5) a pleader can plead
without filing a Vakalatnama. But no pleader is allowed to examine or cross-examine witnesses unless
he has filed his Vakalatnama. This is obviously because examination and cross-examination of
witnesses amounts to 'acting' and Order 3 Rule 4(1) lays down that no pleader shall act for any person
in any court unless he has been appointed by such person by a document in writing, that is by a
Vakalatnama. 1942 Nag LJ 449 and AIR 1948 EP 61, Rel. on; (S) AIR 1955 Madh Bha 109 and (S)
AIR 1955 Bom 262 (Obiter view). Dissent from. (Paras 9 and 10)