NIRANJAN SONI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was on 12-12-1997 that the Court passed the following order, which led to the nomination of this Bench on 5-1-1998 :

(2.) AN application for grant of anticipatory bail to one Niranjan Soni, (numbered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 1140/97) was moved before this Court by Shri N. S. Ruprah, Advocate, which, after hearing him, was rejected on 28-3-1997. Subsequent thereto, another application, (numbered as Misc. Criminal Case No. 4743/97) was moved in this Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the said Niranjan Soni by another Advocate Shri Pradeep Kumar Verma, This application was also rejected on merit by the Court on 17-10- 1997 concluding :

(3.) SHRI Jagdish Tiwari, at the outset, tendering apology on behalf of Shri P. K. Verma and himself, submitted that though the said utterance made by his client Shri P. K. Verma that in the profession, he is ready to face any consequences was not made to erode on the dignity of this august institution of justice though it was not befitting the dignity of the Court. He never meant anything except that it was made in a light vein. He, laying emphatic stress, submitted that it was not with any intention either to exhibit disrespect to the Court or to be disgraceful to the Court. He also submitted that since Shri Verma, who was a practitioner of District Court, was not acclimatized to the atmosphere of this Court which, of course, is different than that prevailing in the subordinate Courts. Before his joining the High Court bar at Jabalpur, he was practising at Bilaspur where he practised for about a decade i. e. from 1985 to 1995. In the District Court, it was not the practice of dictating the order in the presence of the counsel, as, in the subordinate Courts, orders are invariably dictated when the counsel concerned has left the Court room after advancing the arguments, but it is not so in the High Court. Here, the orders are usually dictated then and there, after the arguments are over. It is this practice which led him to leave the Court after concluding the arguments and his such action of leaving the Court was in good faith and was not with any intention to exhibit any disrespect to the Court. It was in good faith on account of unawareness to the practice of this Court and this ignorance led to a situation taking a serious turn. He stated in all sincerity and fairness that Shri Verma is not a nasty lawyer but since he has shifted to this Court recently, it may take some time for him to come up to the level of the standard of this Court and in knowing the grace to conduct himself in this Court and to know the Court etiquette.