STATE Vs. M RANKA, ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When W.A. No. 1360 of 1995 was being heard by this Court, it was pointed out by the Court that the original records in the case were giving a different picture from what was mentioned by the counsel for the appellant in his opening arguments. Counsel raised his voice and shouted at the Court and did not allow the Court to complete the observations which it wanted to make. Hence the Court had to direct the Registry to issue a notice of contempt to the counsel to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. That notice was made returnable on 19.2.1996. Thus, after service of notice the matter came up today.

(2.) Mr. Ranka has filed Sub Application No. 36 of 1996, in which he has prayed for having the charge against him tried by some other Bench in the interest of proper administration of justice. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, he has stated, what according to him, are the correct facts. In paragraph 2, he has set out the duty of an advocate to his client and in paragraph 3 he has referred to Rule 15 of the Rules framed Under Section 49(c) of the Advocates Act. In Paragraph 5, he has stated as follows:

(3.) The statement that he was politely submitting to the Court is not correct. Politeness was nowhere near him. His further statement that the Court accused him in writing cock and bull stories in the affidavit and being guilty of perjury is also not correct. The Court never accused him of such offences or misconduct. The Court only stated that the appellant in the Writ Appeal, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, had written a cock and bull story in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and was guilty of perjury. When we asked Mr. Ranka about this today, he says himself and his client were one in this regard as the affidavit in the writ petition was drafted by him.