AN ATTORNEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order made on 4-5-1954, P. B. Mukharji, J. and myself directed a Rule to issue on 'Jalan & Co.', ostensibly a firm of solicitors practising in this Court, requiring them to show cause why such, disciplinary action as the Court might deem fit and proper should not be taken against them for their failure to arrange for the defence of their clients, the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1954, and also for their failure to attend before the Court when the appeal was on the day's list for hearing. The circumstances in which the order was made were as follows:

(2.) On 22-12-1953, three persons, named Ram Charitar Shaw, Ram Sunder Shaw and Anup Shaw respectively, were convicted by Sen J. in the Ordinary Original Criminal Jurisdiction of this Court of charges under Section 302, road with Section 34, Penal Code and duly sentenced, the first to death and each of the remaining two to transportation for life. On 9-1-1954, the convicted persons filed a joint appeal through Mr. s. N. Sen, a solicitor of this Court. On 15-1-1954, the appeal was admitted. On 24-3-1954, there was a change of attorneys and a fresh warrant from the Appellants was filed by Jalan & Co. with the consent of Mr. Sen. As Jalan & Co thus came to be the Attorneys on record, a copy of the printed paper-book was supplied to them on 7-4-1954. On 10-4-1954, the appeal appeared in the Warning List and Jalan & Co. were informed by the Court's office that it had so appeared. The appeal appeared again in the Warning List, published on 24-4-1954. On 30-4-1954, Jalan & Co. were informed by a letter from the Court's office that the appeal would appear in the Peremptory List on 4-5-1954, before P. B. Mukharji J. and myself. The appeal appeared in the Peremptory List before us on the 4th May being the first of the cases in the day's List.

(3.) On 4-5-1954, as the appeal was about to be called, a very junior Advocate, named Mr.Tibre-walla, rose to apply for a month's adjournment on the ground that as the appellants had failed to put the solicitors in necessary funds, it had not been possible to brief a senior Advocate. Since the application was made in that form, we thought that the Advocate, addressing us, had himself been briefed in the appeal, particularly as he was holding a copy of the Paper-book in his hands, and that he was only hesitating to take upon himself the sole responsibility of arguing it. We accordingly told him that a case involving a sentence of death could not properly be adjourned in the routine fashion, as he was praying for and that he would have to proceed with the appeal and we would assist him as he went on. Mr. Tibrewalla then 'made a prayer that if we were not inclined to adjourn the hearing of the appeal, we might release him and added, greatly to our surprise, that he had been briefed only for asking for an adjournment, but not in the appeal as well. We told Mr. Tibrewalla that if he had not been briefed in the appeal, no question of our releasing him arose and we wanted to know where the solicitors, who had apparently made no arrangements for the representation of their clients, one of them condemned to death, were. Mr. Tibrewalla looked round and informed us that they had been sent for and would soon arrive. We then waited for over 15 minutes, but no one appeared. It was not possible to proceed with the consideration of the appeal, because one of the appellants was under a sentence of death and it was necessary that at least he should be represented. In those circumstances, we directed the matter to be brought to the notice of the Legal Remembrancer so that the State might take the necessary steps to engage a lawyer for the condemned prisoner and directed a Rule to issue on the solicitors to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. At the same time, we discharged the solicitors on account of their failure to act for their clients and for what appeared- to us to be very irresponsible conduct in regard to the carriage of the proceedings. It was all the more necessary to do so, because if they remained Attorneys on record, it would not be possible for the State to assign a lawyer to the condemned prisoner.