SHYAM BIHARI SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short &aposthe Code&apos). It is directed against the order dated 27.6.2001 passed by Shri Shyam Badan Singh, learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S.T. No. 378/2000 (arising out of Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 22/98, G.R. No. 102/98) and for expunging unwarranted remarks passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in violation of the principles of natural justice.

(2.) THE petitioner appears to be an Advocate practicing in Civil Court, Sitamarhi and has contended that one Yogendra Sah accused in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 22/98 had executed vakalatnama in his favour as his Advocate for filing his bail application in the Court of Shri P.K. Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sitamarhi. This vakalatnama was accepted by the petitioner on 28.8.2000 for the purpose of filling the bail application. Again the same accused, namely, Yongendra Sah executed another vakalatnama (Annexure 2) in favor of the petitioner for filing his bail application in the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi. This vakalatnama was accepted by the petitioner on 5th September, 2000. He, accordingly, filed a bail application before the learned Sessions Judge (Annexure -3) which was numbered as B.P. No. 667 of 2000 but was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi by his order dated 14.9.2000 (Annexure -4).

(3.) THE petitioner has further contended that on 22.6.2001 some practicing lawyer of Sitamarhi Bar were humiliated and hackled by Shri Shyam Badan Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi for which the members of the District Bar Association, of which the petitioner also happens to be an office bearer; held a meeting in the Bar Association and this news&apos was published in Daily Hindi Newspaper, Hindustan. When the learned Additional Sessions Judge (opposite party No. 2) came to learn about it he with mala fide intention expressed unwarranted remarks in the order sheet of the case dated 27.6.2001 casting aspersions on the petitioner and did not afford him an opportunity to explain his positions which is against the principles of natural justice.