C K P ASSANKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was counsel appearing for first accused in C. C. 202/86 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry. While disposing of that case convicting the accused learned Magistrate observed:

(2.) As per S.19(2) of the Act a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased that article from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The contention raised by the first accused was that he purchased the article of food from licensed dealer, second accused and that it was covered by warranty. The production of that warranty is highly essential to support his contention. According to him, he entrusted that warranty with his previous counsel, Sri P. V. Abdurahiman and that he failed to produce it in court because he was appearing for second accused as well. For getting an acquittal this fact had to be sworn to by him. As DW 2 he did swear to it as well. Petitioner as a counsel interested in safeguarding the rights of his client, had to get the above facts sworn to by DW 2. It cannot amount to any misconduct on the part of the petitioner.

(3.) First accused lodged a complaint before the Bar Council of Kerala alleging misconduct against Sri P. V. Abdurahiman. On his complaint the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council enquired into the conduct of Sri P: V. Abdurahiman. Now I am told that Sri P. V. Abdurahiman has been found guilty of the misconduct but did not impose any penalty on account of his unconditional apology.