SHYAM NARAYAN TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under S. 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is practising Advocate of Ashoknagar (Guna), for expunging the remarks given against him by the trial Court, while rejecting his application for adjournment, vide impugned order dated 29-5-2000.

(2.) The impugned order dated 29-5-2000 was passed by the trial Court in a Criminal Misc. Case No. 64/95 (State of M.P. v. Sukka and others), in which an application was made by the present petitioner seeking adjournment on the ground of self-illness, which was rejected by the impugned order and certain remarks were also passed against the petitioner/Advocate. The trial Court in the impugned order aforesaid also noted that the counsel has not been appearing from 9-3-1996 onwards and nor he has filed memo of appearance on the record. While rejecting the application, the following remarks were passed by the trial Court as under :-

(3.) Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was the counsel and he was appearing on behalf of the accused-persons, and he had filed the memo. It is submitted that on 29-5-2000 since the applicant himself was sick, he could not come to the Court and the application was filed by the accused-persons for adjourning the case. Shri Saxena stated that it was within the discretion of the Court to allow adjournment or refuse. The Court, however, proceeded further and has passed the remarks, quoted above, which relate to the conduct of the applicant alleged to be misconduct and further that copy of the order has been forwarded to the Bar Council for taking action against professional ethics. It is contended that the remarks have been passed on the back of the applicant, without providing him any opportunity.