ORDER : 1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original accused has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. (b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ order or direction, for quashing and setting aside order dated 06.08.14 passed by the 10th addl. Sessions Judge, Surat, below application Exh. 158 in Sessions Case No. 47/2011, whereby the application with the prayer of reopening of cross examination of the complainant Harikrushna Bhikhabhai Patel is rejected and further be pleased to allow application Exh. 158 presented in Sessions Case No. 47/2011. (c) Pending admission and final hearing of this petition, stay the proceeding of Sessions Case No. 47 of 2011 pending before 10th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Surat. (d) Grant such other and further relief as thought fit in the interest of justice. (e) An affidavit to accompany this petition may kindly be dispensed with as the present petitioner is an under trial prisoner and he is at present in jail and all the facts are taken from the documents on record.” 2. It appears from the materials on record that six persons have been put to trial of the offence of murder. The applicant herein is the original accused No.2. The Sessions Case No. 47 of 2011 is in progress in the Court of the learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat. 3. It also appears that the cross-examination of the first informant Harikrushna Bhikhabhai Patel was in progress. In the course of her cross-examination, many adjournments were prayed for by the learned advocate appearing for the accused No.2 in the trial Court. 4. It appears that ultimately, on 25th July, 2014, the learned Additional Sessions Judge closed the cross-examination of the first informant, thereby the right of the accused No.2 to cross-examine the first informant further also got closed. 5. It appears from the impugned order that on account of some misunderstanding, the trial Judge gathered an impression that the learned advocate appearing for the accused was not keen to proceed with the trial. 6. I am told that later on one another witness entered the box and his examination is also over. 7. I am not entering into the legality and validty of the impugned order. 6. I am told that later on one another witness entered the box and his examination is also over. 7. I am not entering into the legality and validty of the impugned order. I am of the view that a last chance be given to the accused for the purpose of cross-examination of the first informant, which was ordered to be closed vide order dated 25th July, 2014. Ms. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, submits that the learned advocate appearing in the trial court will surely cross-examine the first informant on any day that may be fixed by the learned trial Judge and he would complete the cross-examination of the first informant on that day. 8. In view of such assurance given by Ms. Shah, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant, the order dated 25th July, 2014, passed below Exhibit157 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2011 is hereby quashed. The learned trial Judge shall summon the first informant on any convenient date, and on that day, the learned advocate appearing for the accused No.2 shall complete the cross-examination which was left over. 9. Having regard to the circumstances, in which the impugned order was passed, I would like to observe something independent of the matter. My observations shall not be construed as anything being said regarding the Presiding Officer or the learned advocate who is one of the senior most members of repute at the bar. My observations are general and made only for the purpose of smooth administration of justice. 10. The Bar and Bench play important role in the administration of justice. The Judges administer the law with the assistance of the lawyers. The lawyers are officers of the Court. Since the lawyers are officers of the Court, they are required to maintain towards the Court respectful attitude bearing in mind that the dignity of the judicial office is essential for the survival of the society. During the presentation of the case and while acting otherwise before the Court an advocate is required to conduct himself with dignity and selfrespect. He should not influence the decision of the Court by any illegal or improper means. Besides, he is prohibited the private communication with a Judge relating to a pending case. During the presentation of the case and while acting otherwise before the Court an advocate is required to conduct himself with dignity and selfrespect. He should not influence the decision of the Court by any illegal or improper means. Besides, he is prohibited the private communication with a Judge relating to a pending case. He should use his best effort to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to unfair practices in relation to the Court. An advocate should not consider himself a mere mouthpiece of the client and should exercise his own judgment in the use of restrained language in dealing with the Court. He should not use intemperate language during arguments in the Court. He should avoid scurrilous attacks in pleadings. 11. If the Courts or Judges are not respected, the whole administration of justice, of which he is a part, will result in the complete death of the rule of law. Thus, the lawyers should uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and should not do anything which brings the Court in to disrepute. Many duties of the lawyers to the Court have been codified by the Bar Council of India. The breach of such duties is taken as a professional misconduct and it is punished in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act. Actually selfrestraint and respectful attitude towards the Court, presentation of correct facts and law with a balance mind and without over statement, suppression distortion or embellishment are requisites of good advocacy. It is the duty of the lawyer to uphold the dignity and decorum of the Court and must not do anything which bring the Court itself in to disrepute. 12. The Judges play important role in the maintenance of rule of law which is essential for the existence of the orderly society. It has rightly been said that there is no office in the State of such power as that of the Judge. Judges hold power which is immensely greater than that of any other functionary. The citizen's life and liberty, reputation and property, personal and domestic happiness are all subject to the wisdom of Judges and hang on their decisions. Where judicial power becomes corrupt, liberty expires, no security is left of life, reputation and property and no guarantee is left of personal or domestic happiness. A strong impartial and capable judiciary is the greatest need of a State. Where judicial power becomes corrupt, liberty expires, no security is left of life, reputation and property and no guarantee is left of personal or domestic happiness. A strong impartial and capable judiciary is the greatest need of a State. 13. In re Vinay Chandra Mishra, AIR 1995 SC 2348 the Supreme Court observed that a Judge must be impartial and must do everything for justice and nothing for himself or his friend or his sovereign. A Judge must not allow himself to be subjected to any influence other than influence of the law and justice of the cause. He must discharge his duties without fear or favour, affection or illwill. A Judge should possess calm temper. He should repress irritability and passion. He should always bear in mind the statement of George Sharswood that where passion is allowed to prevail, the judgment is dethroned. He should have patience and gravity of hearing. He should allow the advocate or party the fullest opportunity to present his case. When the Judge does not allow the advocate to present his client's case as he considers it best, the counsel owes to his client to protect against it. 14. Some of the obligations which the Judges owe to the Bar have been well stated by C.L. Anand, in General Principles of Legal Ethics, P. 226. They may be summed up as follows: (i) The first duty which the Judges owe to the Bar is of consideration and courtesy. When the advocate is upset by discourteous treatment, this will prevent him from doing full justice to the client in arguing the case. No Judge should desire that the Bar should be servile. Another duty which a Judge owes to the Bar is to respect its privileges. It is a right of the counsel to insist that he shall be given a patient and courteous hearing so long as he is respectuful and relevant in his arguments. This right of the counsel should be respected by the Judge. (ii) A third duty of the Judge to the Bar is to sit with a receptive mind. No Judge should form opinion regarding merit of the case till he has heard the parties. (iii) Another duty of a Judge is to avoid interruption of the counsel in their argument and in the examination of witnesses. (ii) A third duty of the Judge to the Bar is to sit with a receptive mind. No Judge should form opinion regarding merit of the case till he has heard the parties. (iii) Another duty of a Judge is to avoid interruption of the counsel in their argument and in the examination of witnesses. There should be no interruption of the counsel except to prevent repetition or irrelevancy or to clear up some obscurity in counsel's lines of argument or representation of facts or to indicate to the advocate the Court's view regarding facts or law in the case. If a lawyer is well prepared and in making an orderly presentation of his case, undue interference merely tends to hinder, the ascertainment of truth. According to a canon of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association a Judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition and prevent unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some obscurity but he should bear in mind that his undue interference, impatience or participation in the examination of witnesses or a sever attitude on his part towards witnesses, especially those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of a trial may tend to prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto. The canon further states that in addressing counsel litigant or witnesses, a Judge should avoid a controversial manner or tone. (iv) At the same time courtesy must not be allowed to degenerate into subservience or humility. It is equally the duty of the judiciary not only to be polite towards the members of the bar, but to do everything possible to advance its high traditions. (v) In the case of P.D. Gupta Vs. Ram Murti, AIR 1998 SC 283 the Supreme Court has observed that administration of justice is a stream which has to be kept pure and clean. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. Actually Judges and lawyers are complementary to eachother. It has to be kept unpolluted. Administration of justice is not something which concerns the Bench only. It concerns the Bar as well. Bar is the principal ground for recruiting Judges. No one should be able to raise a finger about the conduct of a lawyer. Actually Judges and lawyers are complementary to eachother. The primary duty of the lawyer is to inform the Court as to the law and facts of the case and to aid the Court to do justice by arriving at the correct conclusions. Good and strong advocacy by the counsel is necessary for the good administration of justice. Consequently the counsel must have freedom to present his case fully and properly and should not be interrupted by the Judges, unless the interruption is necessary. On account of nature of duties to be discharged by the lawyer and Judges, they may get into dialogue sometimes humorous, sometimes harsh and sometimes heated. The heated discussion sometimes results in contempt of Court. If the lawyers have in mind that there is contempt law and may be punished thereunder and the Judges also have in mind that they are not above law, the heated discussion may not lead to any ugly situation. 15. I may conclude observing that ultimately mutual respect is necessary for the maintenance of the cordial relations between the Bench and Bar. Direct service is permitted.