LAWS(PVC)-1935-7-104

GANGA RAM Vs. HABIB ULLAH

Decided On July 26, 1935
GANGA RAM Appellant
V/S
HABIB ULLAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Pilibhit recommending that an order of a Bench of Honorary Magistrates calling upon the complainant's mukhtiar in a case pending before them to produce in Court a particular document should be quashed, or, in the alternative, steps be taken against the mukhtiar under the Legal Practitioners Act.

(2.) It appears that the complainant had previously filed an application in the Court of the District Magistrate against the accused, which was returned to him with the direction to file a regular complaint. Upon this the complaint in this case was filed. The complainant and his witnesses had apparently denied that the witnesses also had signed the previous application. After the complainant and one witness had been examined and the second witness was being cross-examined, the counsel for the accused filed an application before the Court that the application in the possession of the complainant's mukhtiar should be allowed to be inspected by the accused and that it should be caused to be filed, as there was an apprehension that it might be destroyed. The complainant's mukhtiar stated that the papers with him were receipts in connexion with this case, and then he was put the question by the Court: Have you got in your hand the petition which was made by the complainant in the Court of the Collector?

(3.) He answered: "I have not got it." After that the case continued. The cross- examination of the witness was completed,, and then two more witnesses were examined and the statement of the accused's was then taken down. Finally a charge-was framed and read out. After the charge had been framed, the accused's mukhtiar filed another application in the Court that for the sake of further cross- examination the application, which had been returned to the complainant, and which was in the hand of the mukhtiar for the complainant, should be caused to be filed. In reply to this application the; mukhtiar filed a written application stating that his client had given him some papers in connexion with the case, that, the disclosure of such papers would have an adverse effect on the case, that as a legal adviser he did think it necessary to disclose the same and that he did not want to file the papers; but that if the Court considered it necessary that the papers should be filed, and thought nothing, would go against his client if the papers-were filed, then he would file the same. After this the Court heard arguments of" both the mukhtiars on the point and concluded that it was necessary that the paper in dispute should be filed, and accordingly passed an order for the filing of the same. Upon this the complainant s-mukhtiar filed the document, but prayed that it should be kept in a sealed cover.