Judgment :- 1. Petitioner was counsel appearing for the first accused in C.C.202/86 on the file of The Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tellicherry. While disposing of that case convicting the accused learned Magistrate observed: "The evidence of the first accused to D W-2 is clearly an accusation against the Advocate Sri. P. V. Abdurahiman. The entire facts of the case would go to show that the contention of the first accused that he purchased the food from the second accused with bill is false. The first accused signed in Ext. P2 mahazar. There, it is clearly mentioned that there was no bill with the first accused at the time of taking sample. He acknowledged this fact in Ext.P2 mahazar. If he had actually purchased the article with a bill from the second accused, it must find some place in the account books maintained by the first accused. If the evidence of the first accused is accepted as such anybody can say anything. He could have taken steps to produce the relevant books and bills maintained by the second accused. But the second accused produced his bill book for the relevant period and marked as Ext.D3 to D6. Those bill books would go to show that no bill was issued in favour of the first accused. So the present contention of the first accused that he handed over the bill to the earlier counsel is utter falsehood. It is very sorry to note that the present counsel who is defending the first accused allowed his client to depose in such a fashion against his colleague. We cannot say that the first accused deposed before court without the knowledge of the present counsel. The present allegation of the first accused is only a ruse to escape from the liability. But it was very unfortunate. The profession as a lawyer is a profession and not a business. The member of legal profession is an officer of the court whose main purpose is to assist the court in administering justice according to law. The profession of lawyer is a great profession with responsibilities both inside and outside it, which no person carrying on any other profession to shoulder. Firstly it is a learned profession. Secondly, it is a profession in the practice of which, the lawyer has to deal with the greatest possible variety of human relations. The profession of lawyer is a great profession with responsibilities both inside and outside it, which no person carrying on any other profession to shoulder. Firstly it is a learned profession. Secondly, it is a profession in the practice of which, the lawyer has to deal with the greatest possible variety of human relations. Thirdly, the profession of law is the most independent of all the learned professions. In spite of all these remarkable characteristics of the profession, unfortunately, it is also true that, it is also one of the most maligned professions. The allegations made against the profession are - Firstly, that the lawyers promote striff. Secondly, that the practice or profession is inconsistent with stern sense of moral obligation and involves an amount dishonestly and untruth on the part of the practitioners. Thirdly, it is also alleged that the lawyer is a mercenary and prostitutes his talent for money. But these allegations are mostly made by person who are ignorant of the role played by lawyer in the modern society and the very concept of the role as law. A lawyer must note the clients, not lawyers are the litigants. Therefore any ill-feeling between clients, or between a client and a lawyer must not be allowed to influence the lawyers in their conduct and demeanour towards each other. Now, I feel that (he present counsel allowed his client to exploit the ill-feeling between the first accused and the prior counsel. According to me, this is not fair." According to the petitioner, portions of the above statement are unnecessary, unwarranted and unjustified. It has got a tendency to bring him down in the estimate of his clients and colleagues. So, he prays for expunging the remarks: "It is very sorry to note that the present counsel who is defending the Ist accused allowed his client to depose in such a fashion against his colleague. We cannot say that the first accused deposed before court without the knowledge of the present counsel. The present allegation of the first accused is only a ruse to escape from the liability. But it was very unfortunate. The profession of a lawyer is a profession and not a business." "Now I feel that the present counsel allowed his client to exploit the ill-feeling between the first accused and the prior counsel. According to me, this is not fair. But it was very unfortunate. The profession of a lawyer is a profession and not a business." "Now I feel that the present counsel allowed his client to exploit the ill-feeling between the first accused and the prior counsel. According to me, this is not fair. It may not be proper on the part of a counsel to appear for two parties, whose interests are conflicting. But that cannot be a ground to make false allegations against a member of this noble profession, as deposed by DW-2." Some facts relating to the case have to be narrated for a proper understanding of the situation which prompted petitioner to approach this court. First accused in C.C 202/ 86 was prosecuted for offence u/s.(16)(1)(a)r/w. S.7(i) and S.2(ia)(a) & (m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' and R.5 Appendix-B, A05.05.01 of the Rules framed under the Act. Second accused was charged with offence u/s 16(1-C) r/w S.14 of the Act. When the case came up for trial both accused engaged Sri P.V. Abdurahiman to defend them. First accused specifically raised a contention that the article of food sold by him was one purchased from second accused and it was covered by a warranty. He wanted to avail the benefit of clause (2) of S.19 of the Act. For that purpose he entrusted the bill stated to have been obtained from second accused with counsel for production before court. Learned counsel did not produce it before court for reasons best known to him. After trial learned Magistrate convicted first accused and acquitted second accused. The conviction and sentence passed there on against first accused were challenged before the Sessions Court in appeal. That court took suo motu revision against the acquittal of second accused. Suo motu revision and the appeal were heard together. Learned Sessions judge reversed the decision of the trial court and remanded the matter for fresh trial and disposal. When the case was proceeded with afresh first accused engaged petitioner to defend him. At his instance first accused entered witness box and gave evidence as DW-2. As DW-2 he narrated the events which happended between him and the previous counsel Sri. P.V. Abdurahiman. Learned Magistrate now finds fault with petitioner in allowing DW-2 to swear against Sri P.V. Abdurahiman. 2. At his instance first accused entered witness box and gave evidence as DW-2. As DW-2 he narrated the events which happended between him and the previous counsel Sri. P.V. Abdurahiman. Learned Magistrate now finds fault with petitioner in allowing DW-2 to swear against Sri P.V. Abdurahiman. 2. As per S.19(2) of the Act a vendor shall not be deemed to have committed an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated or misbranded article of food if he proves that he purchased that article from a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer. The contention raised by the first accused was that he purchased the article of food from licensed dealer, second accused and that it was covered by warranty. The production of that warranty is highly essential to support his contention. According to him, he entrusted that warranty with his previous counsel, Sri P.V. Abdurahiman and that he failed to produce it in court because he was appearing for second accused as well. For getting an acquittal this fact had to be sworn to by him. As DW-2 he did swear to it as well. Petitioner as a counsel interested in safeguarding the rights of his client, had to get the above facts sworn to by DW-2. It cannot amount to any mis-conduct on the part of the petitioner. 3. First accused lodged a complaint before The Bar Council of Kerala alleging misconduct against Sri. P.V. Abdurahiman. On his complaint The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council enquired into the conduct of Sri P.V. Abdurahiman. Now I am told that Sri P.V. Abdurahiman has been found guilty of the mis-conduct but did not impose any penalty on account of his unconditional apology. 4. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Naim (AIR 1964 SC 703) Their Lordships laid down the following tests to be applied in considering expunction of disparaging remarks against persons or authorities whose conduct comes in for consideration before courts of law. They are: (i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. They are: (i) Whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (ii) Whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (iii) Whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. As counsel defending first accused it was a bounden duty of the petitioner to bring out the circumstances which entitles his client to get the benefit of S.19(2) of the Code. For get ting that benefit he has to slate the circumstances under which the warranty happened to be lost to him. To substantiate that he was duty bound to swear to the part played by his previous counsel, viz., Sri P. V. Abdurahiman. The said statement can in no way be termed as having been made maliciously at the instance of the petitioner. Deposition of first accused as DW.2 in the case is marked as Annexure-D. On going through that deposition it can safely be held that the petitioner's client had spoken only to the bare facts which will go to help him in availing the benefit u/s.19(2) of the Act. Petitioner was bound to advise his client to depose to the truth. That advice is necessarily to be taken as one given in discharge of his duty as counsel. A counsel appearing for the accused cannot be blamed for the statement made by his client for getting the benefit under the enactment. Remarks made by the learned Magistrate against the petitioner was never needed for the decision of the case. It is to be remembered that judicial pronouncements must be judicial in nature, and should not normally depart from sobriety, moderation and reserve. The observations made by the learned Magistrate is lacking in the above qualities. In the result, I allow this petition and expunge the two portions mentioned earlier from paragraph-18 of the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate.