cpc

impleading of appellant in special leave petition(criminal)

Law Student.

Accused had been Acquitted in Trial Court.

Criminal Revision preferred by my mother who is private revision petitioner before High Court against Order of Trial Court was also dismissed.

Now i wanted to prefer Special Leave petition by impleading myself(not a pearty in revision petition before High Court) along with my mother as appellant in the admission stage itself.

The problem is that in the MODIFIED CHECK LIST in the S.No 12 the question (ii) Whether the cause title of the petition/ appeal corresponds to that of the impugned judgment and names of parties therein? was asked.

Will this prevent me to appear as party-in-person because of the genuine reason that my mother does not know english and legal provisions of Law but i am having an experience of 3 years with Supreme Court Judgements and High Court Judgements editing and further more because of the relaibility in conducting the case as frankly to say there is always reasonable apprehension that my opponent side is influencing my mother advocates because of apparent defect in the pleadings. ( though it is apprehension but it seems that justice is not seem to be done.

 

 
Reply   
 
Advocate,9444674980

 Sections 301 and 302 cover two different situations. Section 301 envisages a situation where the Public Prosecutor is in charge of a case and a private person instructs his pleader to intervene. In such cases, as has been rightly held, it is the Public Prosecutor under whose overall conduct and supervision the prosecution is carried on. However, Section 302 is concerned with a situation where any person not being a police officer below the rank of inspector, can prosecute a case, with the permission of the court, either himself or through his pleader. This amply signifies that CrPC contemplates a situation where the whole conduct of the case is with a private person. Thus two levels of intervention by private persons are envisaged under CrPC. One is under the supervision and control of the Public Prosecutor and the other independent of the Prosecutor. Thus clearly, in a case where a private person seeks the permission of the court to intervene, it is the discretion of the court to decide which level of intervention should be allowed in any given case. So in the given situation it is better to appoint pleader to handle your case rather you taking a call.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 


Law Student.

Thank you for the kind reply sir, I had asked regarding the Special leavel petition to be filed before Supreme Court under Article 136 of Constitution of India, 1950 agasint concurrent findings of acquittal by Trial Court and HC in revision overlooking the material facts and established legal proportion of Law established by Supreme Court of India which had taken the constitutional authority under Article 141 of Constitution of India, 1950 . So in SLP the Order sought to be getting Order for re-trial or re-investigation accoring to the discretion of Court. Further just i made serach after posting and i found a case for my querry in the Constitutional Bench case of P. S. R. Sadhanantham vs Arunachalam & Anr on 1 February, 1980 1980 AIR 856, 1980 SCR (2) 873. Please if possible i wish to know whether this judgement will help me to be a party in Supreme Court instead of my mother so that i can represent the case as party -in - person even after passing of Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

 
Reply   
 
ADVOCATE-PRACTICING

Why dont u appear as power holder of your mother....its allowed
 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

IPC Grand Course     |    x