Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2667 (ALL)

Pal Singh Yadav v. State of U. P.

2016-08-02

A.P.SAHI, SHAMSHER BAHADUR SINGH

body2016
JUDGMENT This appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been preferred contending that the appellant could not have been restrained by the learned Single Judge from entering the premises of the High Court on the issue of the appellant's status as a Lawyer which could have been done only by the Bar Council, or even if any order of restraint was to be passed, the same was permissible by a Division Bench of the High Court in the criminal contempt jurisdiction under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is further submitted that the personal affidavit of the appellant disclosing the correct facts having not been appreciated and, therefore, the procedure for taking action against the appellant, which is drastic in nature, being coram non judice, the impugned judgment in so far as it relates to debarring the appellant, deserves to be set aside. 2. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.2 who urged that a special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 would not be maintainable against the judgment of the learned Single Judge exercising criminal jurisdiction in a criminal revision under the Criminal Procedure Code. He, therefore, submits that the appeal being not maintainable, the appellant cannot press any of the reliefs in this appeal. 3. Replying to the said submissions, learned counsel for the appellant contends that this is a matter relating to the right of a Lawyer to practise in a Court which was not the subject matter of the criminal revision and it is on the strength of the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge that he had proceeded to restrain the appellant from entering into the premises of the Courts at Lucknow including the High Court. It is further submitted that an FIR is also sought to be lodged against the appellant and which directions were not within the exercise of jurisdiction of a criminal revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such a situation where the order is without jurisdiction and not in exercise of such powers for which a special appeal is barred, the special appeal is very much maintainable. 4. In such a situation where the order is without jurisdiction and not in exercise of such powers for which a special appeal is barred, the special appeal is very much maintainable. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 and keeping in view the guidelines that have been laid down by the Full Bench of our Court in the case of Sadhna Upadhyaya (Smt.) Advocate. Vs. State of U.P.: [ 2008 (7) ADJ 336 (F.B.)], in the matter of contempt, Sheet Gupta. Vs. State of U.P.: 2010(1) ADJ 1 (F.B.), we find that after having proceeded with the criminal revision while delivering the judgment, the learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion about the status of the appellant as a Lawyer holding him to be an impersonator. It has further been found that his acts also indicate the commission of certain offences for which an FIR should also be lodged against the appellant. This adjudication on the capacity and conduct of the appellant as a lawyer in our opinion, was an exercise of inherent authority that may be traceable to the purported exercise of plenary and inherent powers available to the Court. In such a situation, the findings so recorded by the learned Single Judge, are not in exercise of jurisdiction of a criminal revision and hence to that extent the present appeal would be maintainable against the impugned judgment keeping in view the guidelines as mentioned in the Full Bench decisions referred to hereinabove. 5. The facts that have emerged, indicate that the appellant Pal Singh Yadav is enrolled? as an Advocate with his Enrollment number as U.P.-4987/2014 whereas, he has used Enrollment No.U.P.-6850/2007 which is that of Shiv Pal Singh in several cases including the present case. The learned Single Judge in paragraph 34 to 41 of the impugned judgment has categorically recorded these facts and had called upon the appellant to file his personal affidavit vide order dated 25.04.2016. 6. In the personal affidavit filed in response thereto, it is admitted by the appellant that his registration number is UP-4987/2014. In paragraph-3 and 4 of his affidavit he has stated that he had completed his final semester year of law in June, 2007 and he had submitted his application before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh through one Gopal Narayan Mishra for his enrollment. In paragraph-3 and 4 of his affidavit he has stated that he had completed his final semester year of law in June, 2007 and he had submitted his application before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh through one Gopal Narayan Mishra for his enrollment. In paragraph-5, he has stated that a provisional list was received and his name was at Serial No.38 with Enrollment No.U.P.-6850/2007. However, no document to support the same has been filed. He, however, stated in paragraph-6 that he neither received the certificate nor the identity card but in his over-zealousness and haste, he moved an application for enrollment before the Lucknow Bar Association in the Civil Court at Lucknow. He has then given an explanation that notices were received by him about non-deposit of fee. He also admitted that he had not received the registration certificate. 7. In paragraph-10 of his affidavit, he has alleged that he on advice, moved a fresh application and received the Enrollment No.U.P.-4987/2014 and has urged in paragraph-11 that he was under a bona fide belief from 2007 till 2014 that his registration number was UP-6850/2007. 8. This affidavit was replied to by Shiv Pal Singh through his affidavit dated 12.05.2016 wherein, he has clearly alleged that the appellant had been using his registration number to represent as a counsel which is a clear case of impersonation. 9. The appellant's affidavit aforesaid therefore, appears to be an excuse and the fact that he did not have the registration number of the year 2007, has not been successfully denied by him. To the contrary, his affidavit clearly states that he had not received any registration certificate in respect of any enrollment in 2007. Nothing worth belief was brought on record to establish the alleged bona fide explanation of usage of a different enrollment number that belonged to Shiv Pal Singh. 10. We have gone through the judgment and the learned Single Judge upon a consideration of the affidavits that were filed, has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellant had impersonated himself with the enrollment number of another lawyer Sri Shiv Pal Singh in the case before the Court, and in view of the manipulations referred to in the impugned judgment, also succeeded in misleading the Court to believe that he was acting in the capacity of a Lawyer. The aforesaid findings are clear findings of facts based on material on record. The conduct of the appellant was not only unethical but also unprofessional. He conducted himself in a manner which did require a deterrent. It is for such reasons that the Apex Court n the case of Mahipal Singh Rana Advocate. Vs. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2006), decided on 05.07.2016, came to the conclusion that the power of debarment did exist with the High Court and went on to hold in para 46 of the judgment that such a power can be exercised by the High Court in its inherent power under the Constitution in appropriate cases after its attention is invited to a misconduct keeping in view the absence of any prompt or desired action on the part of the Bar Council which is noted in the said judgment. The Supreme Court went on further to hold in its epilogue in paragraph 50 to 53 that a regulatory mechanism deserves to be installed for regulating prompt action and mal-practices in the legal profession and for that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has expressed hope that the Government of India will take steps accordingly. The Law Commission of India has been requested to go into this and the Government has been called upon to file an affidavit after the expiry of one year to ensure compliance of the said directions. 11. This Court in the Full Bench decision in the case of Suo Motu Action taken by the Court. Vs. Smt. Sadhna Upadhyaya, Advocate (Criminal Contempt No.21 of 2007, decided on 09.04.2009), reported in 2009 (4) ADJ 434, while delivering the judgment had taken notice of these powers while dealing with a criminal contempt and had held that there was a need to introduce a Rule under the High Court Rules enabling the High Court to debar an errant Advocate. The same has now borne fruit with the inclusion of Rule 11-(1) under Chapter XXXIV of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 whereby, such a power has been conferred on the Chief Justice. 12. That apart the conduct as indicated in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, leave no room for doubt that a prompt action was required in the matter in order to prevent such a malady. 12. That apart the conduct as indicated in the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, leave no room for doubt that a prompt action was required in the matter in order to prevent such a malady. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge so as to interfere with the directions issued. 13. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.