Basi Reddy, J.: This is a Court-fee matter. The simple question raised here is whether or not a Memorandum of Appearance filed by an Advocate along with a Criminal Revision Petition presented to the High Court on behalf of a person who is in the position of a complainant, should be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 5 as required by Article 16 of Schedule II of Andhra Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. The question arises in this way: One Shaik Salem Bin Amar Batate presented a Criminal Revision Petition to this Court under sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, against the appellate order of the Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge and District Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1964, confirming the order of the Second City Magistrate, Hyderabad, made in M.C. No. 15 of 1963, whereby an application under section 195 read with section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the Court to make a complaint against one Mohsin Bin Saleh for alleged offences punishable under section 193 and various other sections of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed. Along with the revision petition a Memorandum of Appearance was filed by Shri B.N. Chobe, Advocate, as required by rule 184 of the Criminal Rules of Practice. The Memorandum of Appearance, however, was not stamped with any Court-fee. The High Court office took objection that the Memorandum of Appearance should be stamped with a Court-fee of Rs. 5 under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Act. Learned Advocate, however, took the stand that the Memorandum of Appearance need not be stamped and wanted the matter to be posted before the Court for orders. The matter came up in the first instance before our learned brother, Mohamed Mirza, J., who referred it to a Bench as in his opinion an important point of law was involved. The contention of Shri Chobe is that, sub-section (i) of section 67 of the Act exempts Memoranda of Appearance filed by Advocates in criminal cases from payment of Court-fee. He concedes that under Article 16 of Schedule II, a Memorandum of Appearance filed by an Advocate in the High Court on behalf of a party, is chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. He concedes that under Article 16 of Schedule II, a Memorandum of Appearance filed by an Advocate in the High Court on behalf of a party, is chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. 5 because the expression “any paper signed by an Advocate signifying or intimating that he is retained for a party” occurring in that Article, would naturally include a Memorandum of Appearance. He however relies on sub-section (i) of section 67 of the Act which reads as follows: “67. Exemption of certain documents.-Nothing contained in this Act shall render the following documents chargeable with any fee: (i) Memorandum of Appearance filed by Advocates or Pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases;” Learned Advocate argues that the words “when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases” govern only the preceding word “pleaders” and not the word “Advocates” appearing before the words “or pleaders”. In our opinion, this argument is manifestly untenable. On a plain grammatical reading of the above sub-section, we are clearly of opinion that the words “when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases” govern not only the word “pleaders” but also the word “Advocates”, and the result is that the exemption from payment of court-fee would be available only to Memoranda of Appearance filed by Advocates or pleaders when appearing for persons proceeded against in criminal cases, that is to say, when appearing for persons who are in the position of accused or analogous thereto. In the present case, the revision petitioner is in the position of a complainant and is not a person proceeded against in a criminal case. Consequently, the Memorandum of Appearance filed on his behalf is chargeable with a court-fee of Rs. 5 under Article 16 of Schedule II of the Act. Learned Advocate has referred us to rule 27 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, but that rule merely says that every pleader appearing for the prosecution in any criminal proceeding, shall file in Court a vakalatnama from his client authorising him so as to appear but permits the filing of a Memorandum of Appearance by a pleader defending an accused person, whereas in the case of an Advocate, whether he appears for the prosecution in a criminal proceeding or while defending an accused person, a Memorandum of Appearance would suffice and it is not necessary to file a vakalatnama. It is difficult to see what bearing this rule has on the question of court-fee. That question is governed by Article 16 of Schedule II of the Act and, as pointed out already, the exemption granted by subsection (i) of section 67 of the Act does not apply to a Memorandum of Appearance filed by an Advocate on behalf of a person who is in the position of a complainant. Learned Advocate relied on three decisions: In re, Munirama Reddi1, Manikonda Lingayya and another v. King Emperor2, and In re, Ram Dayal De3. These decisions do not throw any light on the question raised before us. In the first two cases, all that was decided was that, in a criminal case a lawyer appearing on behalf of an accused person need not file a vakalatnama but he could file a Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of the party. In the third case which dealt with entirely a different matter, there is an observation at page 3 of the report which is against the contention advanced by the learned Advocate in the present case. The observation runs as follows: “It is not necessary to decide the question whether a Memorandum of Appearance should bear a court-fee stamp of Rs. 2 as it contains an authority to plead although the authority is filed by the pleader himself: See Abdul Ghaffar v. Dourin4. It may be a question whether the Memorandum of Appearance is a vakalatnama within the meaning of Article 10, Schedule 2. The question has not been debated before us and we express no opinion. We may point out, however, that in Madras a Memorandum of Appearance which is in the nature of a document showing that the pleader has been retained for a party, has to bear a court-fee stamp as a vakalatnama by reason of the amendment of the Court-fees Act, Article 10, by Madras Act V of 1922.” We are thus satisfied that there is no substance in the contention of the learned Advocate. The Memorandum of Appearance filed by him in the present case should be stamped with a court-fee of Rs. 5. Let the papers be returned for compliance with the above direction. K.N.R. ----- Court-fee to be paid on memo.; Papers returned.