MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) SRI A. V. Ramakrishna, learned government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent. ( 2 ) BY the impugned order, the Court below has directed the petitioners' advocate to file vakalath. ( 3 ) THE records disclose that the petitioners had filed the petition under section 438 Cr. P. C. , praying for an order of anticipatory bail. Alongwith the petition, the Advocate for the petitioners had filed a memo of appearance instead of vakalath. The Office of the Sessions Court raised objection. The Court below after hearing, upheld the office objection by observing that the petitioners' Advocate will have to file vakalath. ( 4 ) THE impugned order is contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, 1978 (1) KLJ 148 and ajay Mehta and Others Vs. State of Karnataka, 2003 AIR CRL. LJ 350. ( 5 ) EVEN the bare perusal of Rule 6 (2) of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 would make it clear that it would be sufficient for the advocate appearing on behalf of the accused to file memorandum of appearance in Criminal proceedings containing a declaration that he has been fully instructed to appear by or on behalf of the party whom he claims to represent. In view of the same, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The Criminal Petition is allowed.