ORDER This miscellaneous petition is for dispensing with the copy of the order which a Sessions Judge has passed dismissing the application moved in that Court to enlarge an accused on bail. This miscellaneous petition has been moved in a criminal miscellaneous case filed in this Court under Sec.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code) for enlarging the said accused on bail. As the Sessions Court declined to release the accused on bail, normally, petitioner should have produced a copy of the order of the Sessions Court here. Learned Counsel expressed the difficulty, in that the Sessions Judge rejected his application to grant copy of the order to the counsel on the ground that the counsel had not filed vakalath. The stand of the learned Sessions Judge is that a copy of the order could be supplied to the counsel on filing special vakalath as envisaged in Rule 35 of the Criminal Rules of Practice for short (the Rules of Practice). The counsel had filed a memorandum of appearance in the lower Court containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed by the accused. It is admitted that the counsel had not filed a vakalath or a power of attorney executed by the accused in the lower Court. The question has, therefore, to be considered whether a copy of the order can be supplied to the counsel without filing a vakalath or power of attorney executed by the accused. 2. It is the fundamental right of every person arrested “to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice”. No fetter can be imposed and no restriction can be placed on the fundamental right to guaranteed by the Constitution of India. But the Parliament has further widened the scope of the said right by conferring the said right on any person accused of an offence or against whom any proceedings have been instituted under the Code. This is evident from Sec.303 of the Code which reads thus: “Any person accused of an offence before a Criminal Court, or against whom proceedings are instituted under this Code, may of right be defended by a pleader of his choice”. Thus a pleader can defend an accused against proceedings instituted under the Code. This is the protected right of the accused. Thus a pleader can defend an accused against proceedings instituted under the Code. This is the protected right of the accused. The pleader in defending the accused may have to adopt various legal steps including filing application for bail. “Pleader” is defined in Sec.2(q) of the Code as “a person authorised by or under any law for the time being in force, to practice in such Court, and includes any other person appointed with the permission of the Court to act in such proceeding”. Rule 31 of the Rules of Practice provides that a pleader shall file a memorandum of appearance containing a declaration that he has been duly instructed by or on behalf of the party whom he claims to represent. On filing a memorandum of appearance the pleader is entitled to appear and act on behalf of the accused in any criminal Court. 3. Rule 35 of the Rules of Practice which is relied on by the learned Sessions Judge says that “no pleader shall be entitled to take delivery of property or receive money or document on behalf of his clients unless specially authorised to do so by the vakalath or the power of attorney”. The embargo in Rule 35 is against (1) taking delivery of property, (2) receiving money and (3) receiving documents. Here, the copy of proceedings need not necessarily be construed as a document although copy of proceedings in a wider sense is also a document. It is not in that wider sense that the term ‘document’ is used in Rule 35. This can be discerned from the other rules embodied in the Rules of Practice, Chapter XXV of the Rules of Practice deals with “certified copies”. Rule 222 says that every application “for a copy of a proceeding or document filed in or in the custody of a Court shall be presented by the applicant or his pleader…..”Rule 226 enables a stranger to apply “for the grant of copies of any proceeding or document”. Rule 227 which permits the filing of a single application for copies of more than one document reads thus: “A single application may pray for copies of more than one document or proceeding in the same case”. A reference to the aforesaid rules indicates that copies of proceedings and documents are regarded in different sense. Rule 227 which permits the filing of a single application for copies of more than one document reads thus: “A single application may pray for copies of more than one document or proceeding in the same case”. A reference to the aforesaid rules indicates that copies of proceedings and documents are regarded in different sense. Hence, the embargo contained in Rule 35, that no pleader shall be entitled to receive documents on behalf of his clients without special authorisation to do so by a vakalath, does not apply to copy of proceedings. 4. In state of M.P. v. Lohra state of M.P. v. Lohra 1975 Crl.L.J. 1808 the question considered is whether a pleader can make a prayer to dispense with the attendance of the accused in Court. A Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the sole ground that the said pleader can make a prayer to dispense with the attendance of the accused in Court. A Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the sole ground that the said pleader had not filed a vakalathnama in that Court. It appears that the pleader had filed a declaration that he was authorised by the said accused to appear and act for him. The High Court set aside the order of the Sessions Judge and observed thus: “The learned Additional District Magistrate lost sight of the fact that under Art.22, an accused has a right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice and in the instant case, Shri Singh, Advocate had been so appearing till then and that not only he appeared, but could also appear, act and fully represent the said accused on the basis of a memo of appearance under this own signature declaring himself to be authorised and instructed to so appear. No Vakalathnama as is required in civil proceedings is necessary for pleading and acting for any party to any criminal proceedings.” 5. That apart, Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice is sufficient to remove any doubt, if at all there is any, on this point. The said rule says that the appointment of a pleader in a criminal case shall be “deemed to authorise him to appear or to make an application or to do any act in connection with getting copies of judgments and other documents” even after the termination of proceedings. The said rule says that the appointment of a pleader in a criminal case shall be “deemed to authorise him to appear or to make an application or to do any act in connection with getting copies of judgments and other documents” even after the termination of proceedings. Here, the expression “do any act in connnection with getting copies” would certainly take in the acts of applying for and collecting or receiving such copies. Rule 36 marks the distinction from the preceding rule. What is envisaged in Rule 35 is delivery of the document itself whereas Rule 36 refers to copies of such documents. Even when a pleader cannot receive the document on behalf of his client without special authorisation through a vakalath, he is entitled to receive copies of such documents. This is the distinction between the two rules. If that be the position, even in regard to documents as such, there can be no doubt that a pleader can receive copies of judgments or proceedings in Court without filing a vakalath, provided he files a memorandum of appearance envisaged in Rule 31. It is expected that the subordinate Courts will follow the aforesaid interpretation while dealing with applications for copies of proceedings. 6. As the copy applied for by the counsel has not been granted by the Sessions Court on a wrong interpretation of the rule, I allow this Crl. M.P. and dispense with the production of the copy of the lower Court order. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.