KIRAN N MAKASARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr. Patil, learned Addl. P. P. waives service for respondent No. 1. Name of respondent No. 2 is deleted. By consent, petition is taken up for hearing forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner, an Advocae, was arguing an application for anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai on behalf of one Hawaldar Singh s/o Lalata Singh. The said Hawaldar Singh was apprehending arrest by M. R. A. Marg Police Station in C. R. No. 488/97 for offences punishable under Sections 448, 457 and 380 of the IPC for committing house trespass and theft. Before the Sessions Court the case of Hawaldar Singh was that he took possession of the premises from one Freny Dinshaw, proprietor of General Typewriters (Bombay) Company. During the course of the hearing of that application, the learned Judge made a query as to how much consideration Hawaldar Singh had paid to Freny Dinshaw. The learned Judge was told that there was no occasion to pay any consideration to Freny Dinshaw as Hawaldar Singh had taken possession of the premises directly from the landlord. After conclusion of the arguments, learned Judge started dictating the order in the open Court. The learned Judge recorded in his order that when he asked the petitioner as to how much consideration was paid to Freny Dinshaw, the petitioner made a statement before the Court, after taking instructions from his client, that there was no occasion to pay any consideration to Freny Dinshaw as the possession was taken from the landlord. At that state the petitioner submitted before the learned Judge that such a statement was not made by him and that the Court had put the question directly to his client and the same was answered by his client. Thereupon the learned Judge appears to have told the petitioner that he as well as his client made similar statements before the Court. It seems that the petitioner persisted in his objection that the statement was not made by him but it was made by his client in reply to the query put by the Court directly to his client. The learned Judge felt that the conduct of the petitioner prima facie constitutes an offence punishable under Section 228 of IPC. The learned Judge told the petitioner that he will have to take legal action against him and might take him into custody. Thereupon the petitioner allegedly said "yes, Yes I may be taken into custody". The petitioner was directed to be detained to custody and was called upon to show cause why he should not be convicted under Section 345 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C. ). The learned Judge directed the release of the petitioner on execution of PR Bond of Rupees Five Hundred.

(3.) DURING the hearing of the petition, the petitioner filed his affidavit before this Court describing the incident in the following terms :