Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1184 (PAT)

Sanjay Das v. State Of Bihar

2004-11-30

AFTAB ALAM

body2004
Judgment 1. The court is faced with a deeply distressing situation. In a case under section 498A of the Penal Code, the court went to the extent of making the petitioner (the husband) deposit Rs. 1500/- as litigation expenses so as to make it possible for the wife to appear before the court. The entire effort was aimed at trying to make the disputing parties, the husband and the wife, amicably settle their dispute. 2. From the office note it appears that the petitioner duly deposited Rs.1,500/- and information in this regard being given to the wife she engaged one Mr. Kapildeo Pandey as her lawyer who filed Vakalatnama on her behalf. 3. However, when the case was called out today, though Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, counsel for the petitioner is present, Mr. Kapildeo Pandey is not. His failure to appear thus brings to nought all previous efforts of this court. So much for the lawyers responsibility towards the court and his client. 4. This case is passed over for the day. In case Mr. Kapildeo Pandey fails to appear tomorrow the court may feel constrained to refer the matter to the Bar Council for necessary disciplinary action. Order dt. 30.11.04 5. Despite the order passed yesterday, Mr. Kapildeo Pandey remains absent. 6. This matter is referred to the Bihar Bar Council for taking suitable action against Mr. Kapildeo Pandey as his conduct appears to be grossly in violation of the ethics of the profession. He seems not only to have duped his client but by his. failure to appear in court on two successive dates he is causing definite obstructions in the courts proceedings. 7. Mr. Prem Kumar Jha who also happens to be a member of the Bar Council informed that Mr. Kapildeo Pandey, is already facing a disciplinary proceeding in the Bar Council. 8. Let copies of the entire ordersheet be sent to the Bihar Bar Council that will indicate the efforts taken by the court and that Mr. Pandey seems bent upon to frustrate by his unprofessional conduct. The Bar Council shall intimate the Registrar General regarding the action taken in this matter and the Registrar General shall then appraise the court. 9. In case the money deposited by the petitioner has not been withdrawn, it shall not be withdrawn by Mr. Kapildeo Pandey. 10. Let a notice issue to the opposite party no. The Bar Council shall intimate the Registrar General regarding the action taken in this matter and the Registrar General shall then appraise the court. 9. In case the money deposited by the petitioner has not been withdrawn, it shall not be withdrawn by Mr. Kapildeo Pandey. 10. Let a notice issue to the opposite party no. 2, Smt. Kali Devi, that Sri Kapildeo Pandey engaged by her did not appear on her behalf on two successive dates and, therefore, the court has cancelled the vakalatnama given to him and she should make an alternative arrangement. Notice will go by the Court. 11. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall continue to remain on provisional bail granted to him by the previous order.