SHIV ROOP SHARMA Vs. R K SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is listed today in default of deposting security cost but as requested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R. K. Pandey, it was taken up for final hearing. Shri A. S. Jha, learned Govt. Advocate also agreed, considering the short question of law involved in the petition and its nature and importance, in day to day working of the subordinate criminal Courts, in the State.

(2.) By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, a direction made by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, in the order dt. 20th Aug., 1990 passed in Criminal Case No. 186 of 1989 pending before him, directing the petitioner, a practising advocate, appearing for the accused in the aforesaid criminal case, to henceforth make applications in Hindi, has been faulted with on the ground that this direction contravenes Art. 345 of the Constitution. In a pending criminal trial, an application was made in English, while entertaining the same, the learned Magistrate made the above direction. Read in its proper context, it must be added that it is otherwise an innocuous direction.

(3.) Now that an issue has been raised it has become necessary to clear the confusion in not controversy, as rightly suggested by the learned counsel.