ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE Vs. A CHANDRASHEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We need to prefix this judgment with the observation that this proceeding presents a distressing state of affairs for more than one reason. The first of them is because the party against whom the proceeding has been instituted happens to be a lawyer and a lawyer being an Officer of the Court, it is always been looked upon as being his duty to ensure that standards of professional ethics and propriety are observed at all stages. In the recent past, there has been several blemishes in this regard and it is equally the bounded duty of the judiciary to ensure that in those of the cases where a member of the bar does unfortunately mis-conduct himself or where he is responsible for conduct that undermines the working of the Courts or the Judges, that it will be very necessary from the angles of principle and propriety to take adequate corrective action. The Courts will always adopt an understanding and helpful attitude while dealing with the members of the bar and as a reciprocation, there is an equal and legitimate expectation that the members of the bar will also observe the requisite decorum, propriety and ethics at all times in the conduct of their work and in their dealings with the Courts.

(2.) This is a case in which the respondent was facing a prosecution for an alleged offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and a petition being Criminal No. 175 of 1989 was filed before this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for anticipatory bail. The only aspect of the case with which we are here concerned is that the office raised an objection to the effect that the details of the application made to the Court of Sessions prior to the filing of the bail petition should be furnished. The learned advocate who was then representing the petitioner insisted that the office should place the matter before the Court and that he would make the necessary submissions at that time. When the case was taken up for hearing the question of the office objection did arise and the learned advocate pointed out to the Court that an application had in fact been made to the Court of Sessions and that the application had been rejected. An oral statement was made to the effect that since the order had been passed very recently by the Sessions Court, that only an ordinary uncertified copy was with the learned Advocate, but a typed copy of the same was produced and tendered to the Court. This Court accepted the correctness of that statement and heard the matter and passed appropriate orders. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Court that no such application had been filed before the Sessions Court and that the statement which had been made here to the effect that the earlier application for bail had been rejected by the Sessions Court was a false statement. Secondly, what is more serious is that it transpired that the copy of the so called order that had been tendered on the basis of which the Learned Judge of this Court was made to believe that the Court of Sessions had rejected the earlier bail application was a non-existent order in so far as no such order had been passed by the Sessions Court and consequently, it was obvious that what had been produced in the High Court was a fabrication.

(3.) As a result of this state of affairs, the present contempt proceedings came to be instituted, but apart from these proceedings, an enquiry was directed for purposes of ascertaining as to whether or hot this was a fit case in which the petitioner was required to be prosecuted in an appropriate Criminal Court. Since that enquiry was pending, the present contempt proceedings which date back to the year 1989 were kept pending. The enquiry in question was concluded and it was revealed that this was a case in which the respondent to this proceeding had prima face committed the acts that would justify a prosecution. Accordingly, the respondent has been prosecuted before the Criminal Court for the relevant offences, but we are not much concerned with that proceeding.