APCrRPCO Section 37 : One of the Accused May Represent the Other

Explanation using Example

Example 1: Representation in a Minor Theft Case

Introduction: In a small town in Andhra Pradesh, three friends, Raj, Sita, and Mohan, are accused of minor theft from a local store. They are required to appear in court for the proceedings.

Application: According to Section 37 of The Andhra Pradesh Criminal Rules Of Practice And Circular Orders, 1990, the court may allow one accused to represent another. In this case, Raj, who is more familiar with legal procedures, is authorized by Sita and Mohan to represent them in court. This authorization is provided in writing, signed by Sita and Mohan, and filed with the court.

Outcome: By allowing Raj to represent them, Sita and Mohan can avoid multiple court appearances, saving time and resources. The court accepts the written authorization, and Raj effectively represents all three in the proceedings.

Conclusion: Compliance with the provision allows for a streamlined process, reducing the burden on the accused and the court. Non-compliance, such as failing to file the written authorization, could result in the court not recognizing the representation, requiring all accused to appear individually.

Example 2: Representation in a Traffic Violation Case

Introduction: In Hyderabad, four individuals, Priya, Anil, Ramesh, and Kavita, are charged with a traffic violation during a protest. They are summoned to court for a hearing.

Application: Under Section 37 of the APCrRPCO, Kavita, who has legal training, is authorized by the others to represent them. The authorization is documented in writing, signed by Priya, Anil, and Ramesh, and submitted to the court.

Outcome: Kavita's representation is accepted by the court, allowing her to speak on behalf of all four accused. This arrangement helps manage the case efficiently and reduces the need for multiple legal representatives.

Conclusion: Proper adherence to the legal provision facilitates smoother proceedings. Failure to provide the necessary written authorization could lead to delays or require each accused to secure separate legal representation.