ORDER Hamilton, J.
1. This is an application in ravision against an order of an Additional Sessions Judge which upheld the decision of a Magistrate acting in the exercise of his appellate powers. There was a criminal case filed and decided and an appeal was filed by the persons convicted. In the appellate Court no vakalatnama was filed by the pleader with the memorandum of appeal. The Magistrate accordingly held that the appeal was not filed by a person entitled to present it and therefore dismissed it without inquiring into the merits. It has been urged before me that it is not necessary that, for each Court, there should be a new vakalatnama and a vakalatnama filed in the trial Court will hold good in the appellate Court, provided in the body of it it is so stated, as is the case with this vakalatnama. The relevant rule is to be found in Clause 2, Rule 1, General Rules (criminal), and is as follows:
2. A pleader or mukhtar is entitled to practise only after enrolment as required by Rule 27 or the rules of 10th August 1904, and only in such Court as is mentioned in his certificate granted under Rs. 25 of the said rules, and only in such Court after he has filed his vakalatnama in the case of a pleader, or his mukhtarnama in the case of a mukhtar.
3. It may be that there is some apparent ambiguity in this part of the rule, but if so, we may presume that the intention of this Court was to pass a rule in this matter agreeing as far as possible with the rule passed as regards civil suits. The rules there will be found in Order 3, Rule 4 and under it once a vakalatnama is filed in the original Court it holds good for the appellate Court and no new vakalatnama is required for it. If a vakalatnama was required for each Court, ch. 2, Rule 1 should have read "and only in such Court in which he has filed his vakalatnama" instead of "and only in such Court after he has filed his vakalatnama." It is obviously a condition precedent under the present rule that a vakalatnama should have been filed, but it does not say where. I am of opinion that once a vakalatnama has been filed in the trial Court, it holds good for such Courts as the pleader has a certificate for, provided that the vakalatnama authorises him to appear there on behalf of his client. I find therefore that this appeal was competent and setting aside the decision of the Courts below, I order it to be heard and decided on the merits.