ALLAN E KER Vs. PROMOTHA NATH SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition on behalf of the Firm of Messrs. Clarke, Rawlins, Ker & Co., carrying on business as Solicitors and Notaries in Calcutta. They were instructed to act on behalf of the complainant in respect of a charge which was subsequently preferred under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code. Process was issued against the accused and, subsequently, the complainant intimated to the petitioners that their services as Attorneys were no longer required by him.

(2.) There upon letters passed between the complainant and the petitioners in which the petitioners stated that all documents belonging to the complainant which were in their hands would be handed over to him on payment of their bill of costs. Thereafter the petitioners were served with a sub-poena to produce the documents before the Chief Presidency Magistrate. The petitioners then moved the Chief Presidency Magistrate for an order that their costs should be paid before they produced the documents under the order. The Magistrate then made the following order: Heard both sides, Ordered petitioner deposit all documents received by him from his client in Court; I propose to use them for the purposes of this case but petitioner's prayer that he be allowed until 2-30 p.M. to-day before the documents are used is allowed.

(3.) Thereupon, Mr. Lewis, on behalf of the petitioners, applied to this Court for an. order that the Chief Presidency Magistrate order be stayed and that a Rule be issued to show cause why the order should not be set aside. An order was made staying the Magistrate's order until this morning. Mr. Lewis now asks that a Rule should -issue. It seems clear that the Magistrate's order was made under Section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion a Solicitor's general lien upon documents is no answer to an order made under this section. Although no Court may take cognizance of an offence Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by the husband as provided in that section, nevertheless, the offence referred to in that section is, like all other offences described in the Indian Penal Code, an offence against the public in which the Crown, as always, is the prosecutor. The complainant merely puts the Crown in motion. Thereafter, the issue is between the Crown and the accused.