Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 930 (PNJ)

Gurnam Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-08-21

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - Gurnam Singh petitioner-complainant has filed this petition under Section 407 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of criminal revision No. 4 dated 24.1.2003, pending in the Court of Shri B.S. Nangli, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh to any other court of competent jurisdiction. 2. The aforesaid criminal revision was filed by the petitioner against the order, passed by the trial Court, vide which respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have been discharged. 3. The petitioner seeks transfer of the aforesaid revision on the following grounds :- "That the counsel for the petitioner (before the trial Court) lives near officers colony in Fatehgarh and the ADJ lives in officers colony. The residence of ADJ falls on the way to the office-cum-residence of the petitioner counsel. That on Sunday 30.5.2004 the petitioner at around 7 A.M. went to the office of Counsel in regard to his case and at around 7.30 A.M., when the petitioner was coming back from the office of his counsel he was shocked to see accused respondent No. 2 coming out of the residence of ADJ Mr. B.S. Nangli, along with a Hindu gentleman, in a good mood. Ever since that day the accused have spread the word that they have won the revision petition. The accused even when they met the petitioner said that what have you achieved by filing the revision petition see we have again won. When the petitioner questioned that the case is still pending, the accused replied that the decision is done it only has to be pronounced. That on being faced with these unfortunate developments on 9.6.2004 when the revision petition came up for hearing before the ADJ the petitioner moved an application Annexure P-2 bringing the unfortunate development to his notice and sought adjournment of the case, the learned ADJ on reading the application right away rejected it by writing rejected on it as evident from Annexure P- 2." 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the contents of the petition. 5. The version given by the petitionr, prima facie appears to be false and concocted. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application on 9.6.2004 before Sh. B.S. Nangli, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, for adjournment and transfer of case. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have perused the contents of the petition. 5. The version given by the petitionr, prima facie appears to be false and concocted. Admittedly, the petitioner filed an application on 9.6.2004 before Sh. B.S. Nangli, Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, for adjournment and transfer of case. The contents of the said application, which has been annexed with this petition, are re-produced as under :- 1. That above noted case is pending in this Honble Court and fixed for today. 2. That applicant wants to get the case transferred from this Honble Court as respondents are saying that they have managed to procure a favourable order from the Court in their favour and as such petitioner does not want to get the case decided from this Honble Court. It is, therefore, prayed that the case may kindly be adjourned and the file may kindly be sent to the Court of Honble Sessions Judge for necessary order in the interest of justice. The said application was rejected by the Court on the same day. From the aforesaid contents of the application, it is clear that the petitioner did not level the allegations, which have been made in this petition. It is a case of clear cut improvement and concoction of facts by the petitioner subsequently, when this petition was filed in this Court. 6. Such kind of irresponsible behaviour of clients is deplorable. Even counsel cannot shirk from his responsibility while drafting such petitions and levelling baseless and false allegations. The Honble apex Court in M.Y. Shareef and another v. Honble Judges of the Nagpur High Court and others, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 19, has observed as under :- "There was considerable misconception amongst a section of the Bar about Advocates responsibilities in matters of signing transfer applications from one bench to another Bench of the High Court. A section of the Bar was under an erroneous impression that when a counsel is acting in the interests of his client, or in accordance with his instructions he is discharging his legitimate duty to his client even when he signs an application or a pleading which contains matter scandalizing the court. They thought that when there was conflict between their obligations to the Court and their duty to the client, the latter prevailed." 7. They thought that when there was conflict between their obligations to the Court and their duty to the client, the latter prevailed." 7. In Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana, 1996(7) Supreme Court Cases 99, the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the appellant-advocate cannot escape the responsibility on ground that he drafted the same in his professional capacity or that the imputations were only aimed at the individual and were not likely to interfere with administration of justice. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.