AMIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the Additional Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Though, during course of argument it has been submitted on behalf of appellant that smacking some sort of foul smell, there was complaint before the High Court in Administrative side against the learned P.O. which the order impugned also disclose and to substantiate the allegation, different bail orders having been passed by the learned P.O. was also to be furnished and for that, requisites were filed by the appellant, being as an advocate clerk which caused annoyance to the learned P.O. whereupon eleven cases have been drawn up under Section 345 Cr.P.C. by the learned P.O. against the appellant, wherein similar kind of order has been passed on the same day and so, eleven appeals have been preferred and those are Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.598 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.615 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.662 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.620 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.639 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.642 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.643 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.648 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.651 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.654 of 2015, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.655 of 2015 which have been preferred against the order dated 09.09.2015 passed in Cr. Misc. Case No. 1/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 2/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 5/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 3/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 9/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 7/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 8/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 11/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 4/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 10/2015, Cr. Misc. Case No. 6/2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, VIIth, Begusarai convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 345 Cr.P.C. read with Section 228 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for six month as well as fined appertaining to rupees one thousand and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month relating to all the cases.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant instead of arguing the appeals on its merit involved in stressing upon identification of appellant as an Advocate Clerk with submission as well as supplementing his activity that being Advocate Clerk, Appellant was quite competent to procure certified copy of the orders relating to disposed of Bail Petitions irrespective of the fact that he was not at all engaged in his professional capacity by the respective clients or by the learned counsel who had filed those bail petition. That being so, it is the submission having made on behalf of appellant that as the appellant happens to be legally entitled to obtain certified copy of the order being an advocate clerk, consequent thereopon applied for obtaining certified copy of eleven orders relating to bail petition which had already been disposed of by the P.O. concerned and for that, he would not have been prosecuted in a manner as proceeded by the learned lower court as well as convicted therefor.