ADVOCATE MANISH KUMAR KHANNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Shri Manish Kumar Khanna, Advocate has filed this Writ Petition in his individual capacity impugning the two different orders passed in two different cases i.e. order dated 14th February, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 11/2013 filed as State Vs. Gupreet Singh & Anr. in FIR No. 23/2012 PS Special Cell and order dated 10th May, 2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 10/2013 titled as State Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors. in FIR No. 28/2012 PS Special Cell whereby his prayer to impose cost on the Prosecution, was declined.

(2.) IN brief the case of the Petitioner is that he has been practising on criminal side since the year 1998 and has been working to provide speedy justice to ordinary litigants and for that purpose has also been using the provisions of RTI Act to obtain necessary information in this regard. The Petitioner is a small time Advocate who is able to charge a very limited fee and his practice is limited to commercial quantity drug cases along with some murder and rape cases where the possibility of bail is not there. The Petitioner has seen that certain counsel having multiple cases do not appear in time in a particular matter and the result is that either the matters are delayed due to defence delays or even worse the counsel may not be present during the chief examination and is unable to comprehend the finer nuances of the chief examination and makes certain self goals during the cross examination. This causes serious prejudices to the ordinary litigants. Most of the time the adjournment is given for two to three months but if defence counsel is not available the attitude of the Court is harsh. Thus, only a defence counsel who appears on each and every date gets the right to raise the issue of adjournments so that he is not held responsible for the delay. Even the casual leave is not available to the defence counsel. The worst loss is not in term of money but loss of attention to the case and the counsel who has worked till mid -night on the case, lose interest if there is an adjournment and the problem is compounded when the litigant is not in a position to pay for the adjourned dates.

(3.) DIRECT the prosecution department to insure the presence of the prosecutors in the Hon'ble Court.