B. SRIRAMULU Vs. K.K. MURTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( 'Code ' for short) the Petitioner which has been arrayed as an accused in a complaint case (1. CC Case No. 47 of 1982) by the opposite party an Advocate, in the Court of the Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Parlakhemundi has prayed for quashing of the criminal proceeding mainly on two grounds. First, in the absence of the opposite party in Court on 23 -11 -1982 the complaint petition should have been dismissed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate and second, even though the -allegations made in the complaint petition are accepted as true in their face value, they will not prima facie make out a case under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code ( 'I.P.C. ' for short) against the Petitioner.

(2.) I have heard Mr. J. Patnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and find that none is present on behalf of the opposite party. The State has, however, been represented by the Additional Standing Counsel. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Patnaik relating to the first ground of attack, because the order dated 23 -11 -1982 was purely an interlocutory character passed by the learned Court below which is not revisable according to the provisions of Section 397 (2) of the Code. So far as the second ground is concerned, it is necessary to state a few facts. In a suit for damages for malicious prosecution (M. S. 19 of 1981) against the Petitioner by another person, the opposite party was first the Plaintiff 's Advocate and subsequently he chose to be a witness and was examined as p.w. 2. The Petitioner 's Advocate in the said suit put a suggestion in cross -examination to the opposite party and he answered them in the following manner:

(3.) THE virtues of honesty and integrity to a lawyer is as sacred as chastity to a woman. If a lawyer is reputed to be dishonest who receives his remuneration not only from his client, but also is in the habit of receiving money from his opponent as illegal gratification, loses his credence and cannot prosper in the profession. As honest and sincere lawyer on the other hand goes steady with his clients and gets recognition in due course. If honesty and integrity of a lawyer is doubted on the ground that he is in the habit of demanding gratification from his clients ' opponents, his reputation in the eyes of Judges and Magistrates, members of the Bar and the general litigants suffers to a great extent. He may even be looked down upon in the society although in a particular case he may act honestly.