A. SANKAR Vs. V. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.S.Balaji, learned Government takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) This Court while disposing of the writ petition directed the respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 20/8/2014 in line with the guidelines given in the Judgment in Sabari vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and Others reported in 2018 4 MLJ Crl 585. This order was passed on 18/1/2019. 2. Since the above order passed by this Court was not complied with by the respondent, the counsel on instructions from his client had issued a contempt notice to the respondent on the ground that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. On receipt of this legal notice, the respondent has issued a Summon under Sec. 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. to the counsel who is representing the petitioner and also to the petitioner.

(3.) It is quite unfortunate that the respondent police had issued a Summon on the counsel representing the petitioner and that too under Sec. 91 and 160 of Cr.P.C. This clearly establishes non-application of mind and issuing such a Summon to an Advocate representing his client, clearly impinges upon the stature of an Advocate. The respondent probably did not even realize the seriousness of issuing such a Summon to an Advocate representing a client. This Court takes very serious note of the attitude of the respondent and the recklessness with which the Summon has been issued to the Advocate representing the petitioner.