JUDGMENT J.N. Takru and S.N. Dwivedi, JJ. - This case comes to us on reference by a learned single Judge. 2. One Durbin Singh was an accused in a criminal case. He absconded. Steps were taken against him under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Some cattle and other things were attached. The applicants, Lal Singh and others, preferred a claim under sub-sec. (6-A) of Section 88 to the attachment of two bullocks, two she buffaloes and two calves. The claim was made in writing. The claim was signed not by the applicants but by their counsel, Sri Ram Sanehi Misra. Sri Ram Sanehi Misra is an advocate. He filed a memorandum of appearance, and not a Vakalatnama. The memorandum of appearance showed that he was appearing on behalf of Lal Singh. The other applicants are his brothers. The claim was c- entertained by the Magistrate. The oral evidence of the parties was recorded. The claim was, however, not decided on merits. The Magistrate dismissed it summarily on a technical ground that without a Vakalatnama Sri Ram Sanehi Misra could not act and file the claim on behalf of the applicants. His order was maintained in revision by the Sessions Judge, Etah. 3. The reason given by the Magistrate does not appeal to our sense of justice. Jr. can hardly justify the summary dismissal of the claim on the conclusion of the enquiry. We are surprised that the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the Magistrate's reasoning. The claim was preferred on November 6, 1962. It is not clear from the order-sheet maintained by the Magistrate that Lal Singh was present when Sri Ram Sanehi Misra filed the claim in the court of the Magistrate. However, on November 16, 1962, Lal Singh and his counsel were present in Court. An application for release of the bullocks and she-buffaloes from the cattle pound during the pendency of the claim was made on that day. It was supported by an affidavit of Lal Singh. Lal Singh produced oral evidence to establish his claim on subsequent dates. His appearance in court on November 16, 1962, and his conduct on subsequent dates unmistakably demonstrated that the claim was preferred on his instructions. If the filing of a Vakalatnama was necessary, there was only an irregularity in the presentation of the claim. Lal Singh produced oral evidence to establish his claim on subsequent dates. His appearance in court on November 16, 1962, and his conduct on subsequent dates unmistakably demonstrated that the claim was preferred on his instructions. If the filing of a Vakalatnama was necessary, there was only an irregularity in the presentation of the claim. The claim could not be dismissed summarily for this irregularity after the close of evidence. In Kanhaiya Lal v. The Panchayati Akhara, A.I.R. 1949 Alld. 367, a counsel had filed an application for execution of a decree without filing his Vakalatnama. The application was entertained and the execution court acted on it. In a subsequent execution application the judgment-debtor contended that it was barred by time. The decree-holder tried to save time by relying on the earlier application. The judgment-debtor retorted that it was not "in accordance with law" and could not, therefore, save time. This Court held that the earlier application could not be considered to have not been made "in accordance with law" merely because it was handed over to the court by a pleader who did not hold the Vakalatnama from the decree-holder. Malik, C. J. said : "I am, therefore, of the opinion that the physical act of filing or presentation is a part of acting and in my view if a duly authorised agent or duly appointed pleader does not present the document it is open to the court or the officer concerned to refuse to take it. If, however, he has taken it and the court has acted on it, I can see no such defect in the presentation of the document as to take away its legal character merely because the actual physical act of handing over the particular document has been done by others when the court is satisfied that the application was as a matter of fact intended to be filed by the decree-holder and it was he who had it presented before the officer appointed for receiving such application, through the hands of another. To hold otherwise will, to my mind, result in giving an undue importance to a comparatively unimportant matter." 4. This line of reasoning is sufficient in the particular circumstances of this case to decide this revision in favour of the applicants. To hold otherwise will, to my mind, result in giving an undue importance to a comparatively unimportant matter." 4. This line of reasoning is sufficient in the particular circumstances of this case to decide this revision in favour of the applicants. We shall, however, not rest our decision on this narrow ground and will proceed to deal with the important question of the interpretation of rule 6 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957. 5. The appearance of a counsel on behalf of the parties in a criminal case in the district criminal courts is regulated by the rules made by this Court. The rules are known as the General Rules (Criminal) , 1957. Rule 6 is material. It reads: "The legal practitioners authorised to practise in criminal courts in the State are the advocates, vakils, pleaders and Mukhtars hereinafter mentioned. Any advocate entitled to practise in the High Court and not under suspension shall be entitled to practise as such in any court on his satisfying the presiding officer of such court by means of his certificate of enrolment in the High Court or otherwise of the fact of such enrolment, and shall be entitled to appear in a particular case. on filing a memorandum of appearance. A pleader or Mukhtar shall be entitled to practise if he has been enrolled as such in accordance with the rules in force at the time of his enrolment. He shall be entitled to practise only in such court as is mentioned in his certificate of enrolment. He shall be entitled to appear in a case after he has filed his Vakalatnama in the case of a pleader or his mukhtarnama in the case of a mukhtar." 6. A legal rule is not an upstart like a mushroom. It is like a living tree. It has got its branches and leaves; it has its roots. too. You have to read it from the roots to the top to understand it. The roots give force and colour to the top. So you should look for the roots of rule 6 to discover its true meaning. 7. In England, a Barrister may appear on behalf of a party in a court of law. He may enter into a compromise, examine and cross-examine witnesses and sign a petition of appeal to the House of Lords. So you should look for the roots of rule 6 to discover its true meaning. 7. In England, a Barrister may appear on behalf of a party in a court of law. He may enter into a compromise, examine and cross-examine witnesses and sign a petition of appeal to the House of Lords. When he appears in the court of law and states that he is instructed, the court will not enquire into his authority to appear (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edition, page 49). Until 1926, legal practitioners included advocates, vakils and pleaders. The advocates preponderantly consisted of the Barristers practising in the Allahabad High Court and the courts subordinate to it. They were all covered in the definition of the word "pleader" in the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, expressly provided that no advocate of any High Court established by Royal Charter shall be required to present any document empowering him to act. Section 39 later became rule 4 of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Sub-rule (3) of rule 4 provided that no advocate of any High Court, who is a Barrister, shall be required to present any document empowering him to act. Other legal practitioners were required to file a Vakalatnama. So an advocate, who was a Barrister, could act in a civil court without filing a Vakalatnama until 1926. In 1926 the Bar Councils Act was passed. It created two classes of legal practitioners, advocates and pleaders. Any law graduate could become an advocate by taking one years training and depositing the prescribed fee. After this Act, the Civil Procedure Code (Second Amendment) Act, (No. XXII of 1926) , was passed. It radically amended rule 4 of Order III. The amended rule puts on an equal footing all the legal practitioners. All of them including the advocates are now required to file a Vakalatnama for the purpose of acting on behalf of a party. But they may plead on behalf of a party merely by filing a memorandum of appearance. 8. On the criminal side, the advocates were never required to file a Vakalatnama for the purpose of acting on behalf of a party. But they may plead on behalf of a party merely by filing a memorandum of appearance. 8. On the criminal side, the advocates were never required to file a Vakalatnama for the purpose of acting on behalf of a party. We could not lay my hands on a cop.), of the General Rules (Criminal) in force before 1911 in the area under the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. Rule I of Chapter II of the General Rules (Criminal) , 1911, dealt with the legal paractitioners appearance in criminal courts as follows: "The pleaders authorised to practise in Criminal Courts in the North-Western Provides are the Advocates, attorneys, vakil, pleaders and Mukhtars hereinafter mentioned. Any advocate, attorney or vakil on the roll of the High Court and not under suspension, who, in the case of an attorney or vakil, has filed his Vakalatnama, is entitled to practise as such in any court upon producing to the presiding officer of such Com t his certificate of enrolment in the High Court, or otherwise satisfying such presiding officer of the fact of such enrolment. A pleader is "entitled to practise only after enrolment as required by rule 27 of the Rules of the 10th August, 1904, and only in such a Court as is mentioned in his certificate granted under rule 25 of the said rules. A Mukhtar may be appointed to act in any criminal proceeding with the per mission of the court, in which he is authorised to practise under rule 27 of the rules of the 10th August, 1904." 9. In December, 1923, the last paragraph was deleted and after the words "a pleader" in the second paragraph the words "or Mukhtar" were added. After this amendment, a Mukhtar could also practise in a criminal court as of right and without obtaining the permission of the court. 10. It may be observed that under rule 1 it was not necessary for an advocate, if he wanted to act on behalf of a party in a criminal case, to file a Vakalatnama. He was not even required to file a memorandum of appearance. The law regulating the appearance of an advocate in district criminal courts was the same as the law regulating the appearance of a Barrister in the criminal courts in England. 11. He was not even required to file a memorandum of appearance. The law regulating the appearance of an advocate in district criminal courts was the same as the law regulating the appearance of a Barrister in the criminal courts in England. 11. By a later amendment the words "North-Western Provinces" in rule 1 were replaced by the words "Province of Agra." 12. The legal rule embodied in rule I continued in force for a long time. Sometime after 1934 (the definite date could not be ascertained) , rule 1 was amended. The relevant part of the amended rule read: "Any advocate on the roll of Advocates of the High Court and not under suspension is entitled to practise as such in any court upon producing to the presiding officer of such court instructions from his client authorising him to appear and plead on such client's behalf and upon producing to the presiding officer of such court his certificate of enrolment in the High Court or otherwise satisfying such presiding officer of the fact of such enrolment." 13. This amendment made a significant change. It required an advocate to produce before a district criminal court instructions from his client authorising him to appear and plead on his behalf. This amendment operated until the beginning of 1943. Thereafter, in this amendment the words "upon producing to the Presiding Officer of such court instructions from his client authorising him to appear and plead on such client's behalf" were substituted by the words "on filing in the court a memorandum of appearance". In the result, an advocate could act after the beginning of 1943 on behalf of a party in a district criminal court on his filing in the court a memorandum of appearance, for the word "practise" means acting as well as pleading Aswani Kumar Ghosh v. Arbinda Bose, 1952 S.C.R. 369. 14. The law in Oudh was the same. When the Oudh Chief Court and the former Allahabad High Court were amalgamated into a new High Court called the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, there was no change. 15. To sum up, the privilege of Barristers in England to appear in a criminal court without filing a Vakalatnama was enjoyed until 1926 by the advocates practising in the civil and criminal courts subordinate to the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court. 15. To sum up, the privilege of Barristers in England to appear in a criminal court without filing a Vakalatnama was enjoyed until 1926 by the advocates practising in the civil and criminal courts subordinate to the Allahabad High Court and the Oudh Chief Court. From 1926 the privilege was withdrawn on the civil side. But it continued on the criminal side. The privilege appears to us to be a sheer accident of history. 16. The General Rules (Criminal), 1911, and the Oudh Criminal Rules, 1928, were replaced by the General Rules (Criminal), 1957. The new General Rules were made to prescribe a common code for the entire State. We have already quoted rule 6 of the new rules. Rule 6 now regulates the practise of the advocates in the district criminal courts of the State. Till the commencement of these rules, an advocate was not required to file a Vakalatnama for the purpose of acting on behalf of his client in a district criminal court. We put it to ourselves: what is here in rule 6 to show that after 1957 an advocate could not act on behalf of his client in a district criminal court without filing a Vakalatnama. The General Rules (Criminal), 1957, were professedly issued to consolidate the law for the whole State y superseding the General Rules (Criminal), 1911, and the Oudh Criminal Rules, 1928. The professed purpose would not show that the High COurt intended to make a radical departure from the previous law. In our opinion the language of rule 6 also does not evince such intention. We have already pointed out that the word "practise" in paragraphs 2 and 3 of rule 6 shall mean both acting and pleading. So an advocate, a pleader or Mukhtar is entitled to act as well as plead in a district criminal court. But two conditions should be fulfilled before any of them should be fulfilled before any of them could act and or plead. Firstly, an advocate should show to the court his certificate of enrolment in the High Court or other wise satisfy the court of such enrolment. A pleader or Mukhtar may practise only in such court as is mentioned in his certificate of enrolment. Secondly, an advocate shall be entitled "to appear" in a case on filing a memorandum of appearance. Firstly, an advocate should show to the court his certificate of enrolment in the High Court or other wise satisfy the court of such enrolment. A pleader or Mukhtar may practise only in such court as is mentioned in his certificate of enrolment. Secondly, an advocate shall be entitled "to appear" in a case on filing a memorandum of appearance. A pleader or Mukhtar shall be entitled "to appear" in a case on his filing a Vakalatnama or a Mukhtarnama, as the case may be. What does "appear" imply in the second or third paragraph of the rule? A legal pracitioner does not appear for himself in a case. Some person is required to appear before a criminal court. He may be required to appear for prosecuting or defending in a case or for any other purpose. He may instruct a legal practitioner to appear on his behalf for prosecuting or defending in a case or for any other purpose. When a legal practitioner so appears, he is said to practise in a court. In other words, he is said to act and or plead, as the case may be. Accordingly, we think that the words "to appear in paragraphs 2 and 3 mean "to appear" for acting and or pleading on behalf of a party in a case. An advocate may appear to act and or plead on behalf of a party in a case on his filing a memorandum of appearance, while a pleader or Mukhtar may so appear on his filing a Vakalatnama or Mukhtarnama, as the case may be. 17. If rule 6 is construed in the light of its history, purpose and language, there is no difficulty in holding that an advocate may act on behalf of a party in a district criminal court merely on his filing a memorandum of appearance. It is not necessary for him to file a Vakalatnama. A pleader or Mukhtar is, however, required to file a Vakalatnama for acting as well as pleading. Accordingly, the claim of Lal singh and another was validity preferred by Sri Ram Sanehi Misra, as he had filed a memorandum of appearance. The lower courts have wrongly held that it was necessary for him to file a Vakalatnama for preferring the claim. 18. Before concluding we should mention that Sri Gopi Nath Kunzru and Sri Jagadish Swarup have at the request of the Court. The lower courts have wrongly held that it was necessary for him to file a Vakalatnama for preferring the claim. 18. Before concluding we should mention that Sri Gopi Nath Kunzru and Sri Jagadish Swarup have at the request of the Court. appeared on behalf of the U.P. State Bar Council and the High Court Bar Association and have given use valuable assistance. 19. We are thankful to them. We should also say that the language of rule 6 now needs some amendment in the light of the Advocates' Act. 20. We allow the revision and set aside the orders of the learned Sessions Judge and the Magistrate. The case will now go back to the Magistrate through the Sessions Judge, Etah, for decision of the claim of the applicants on merits.