इस कारण से इस आदेश के बाद किसी भी अधिवक्ता साथी को जमानतदार को या जमानत के दस्तावेजों को तस्दीक करने के लिए दबाव न्यायालय के पीठासीन अधिकारी द्वारा नहीं दिया जा सकता है।
Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 446, 436, 437, 438 and 439 -- surety and bail papers -- advocate need not identify surety or accused persons -- if compelled the matter may be reported to Bar Council and District Judge -- order circulated.
This is an application u/s. 438 CrPC in connection with Crime No 654/02 for the offence punishable u/s: 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is a practising lawyer in Tehsil Tarana, Distt. Ujjain. He submits that he has identified the surety on the basis of his photographs affixed on the affidavit.
The applicant should not have identified the surety when he himself was not knowing him. It is also contended by the counsel for the applicant that Courts are compelling advocates to identify the surety at the time of verification of bail papers and surety papers. If this is so, then this practice must be depricated. It is not the job of the advocates to identify the surety or the accused persons nor the Court can compel them for the same. If the advocates are identifying the surety or the accused persons, in the Court, then it would be at their own risk. If the Courts are compelling them then it is the duty of the counsel to report this matter to the Bar Council as well as the District Judge.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the applicant is a practising lawyer and during the course of his profession he has committed bonafide mistake, the application is allowed.
Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this order among all the Districts Sessions Judges who will take care of the situation prevailing in the Districts as well as Tehsil places.
[2002] 0 Supreme(MP) 774
[2003] 1 MPWN 43
Shivnarayan Vs. State of M.P.
S.L. Kochar, J.
Shivnarayan v. State of M.P.
ः
This is an application u/s. 438 CrPC in connection with Crime No 654/02 for the offence punishable u/s: 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.
The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he is a practising lawyer in Tehsil Tarana, Distt. Ujjain. He submits that he has identified the surety on the basis of his photographs affixed on the affidavit.
The applicant should not have identified the surety when he himself was not knowing him. It is also contended by the counsel for the applicant that Courts are compelling advocates to identify the surety at the time of verification of bail papers and surety papers. If this is so, then this practice must be depricated. It is not the job of the advocates to identify the surety or the accused persons nor the Court can compel them for the same. If the advocates are identifying the surety or the accused persons, in the Court, then it would be at their own risk. If the Courts are compelling them then it is the duty of the counsel to report this matter to the Bar Council as well as the District Judge.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the applicant is a practising lawyer and during the course of his profession he has committed bonafide mistake, the application is allowed.
Registry is directed to circulate the copy of this order among all the Districts Sessions Judges who will take care of the situation prevailing in the Districts as well as Tehsil places.
[2002] 0 Supreme(MP) 774
[2003] 1 MPWN 43
Shivnarayan Vs. State of M.P.
S.L. Kochar, J.
Shivnarayan v. State of M.P.
ः
Comments
Post a Comment