NANA RAM KSHIRSAGAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(BOM)-1972-6-11
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on June 22,1972

NANA RAM KSHIRSAGAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE three petitioners-accused are aggrieved by an order of adjournment with costs, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Akkalkot. The accused asked for an adjournment on the ground that their lawyer Mr. Dhamankar was unable to attend the Court because of his illness. The lawyer had also sent a note with his client sayins that he was unable to attend the Court by undertaking journey from Sholapur to Akkalkot On that day because he was suffering from flu and therefore he reauested the Court to adjourn the case for a week. The learned Magistrate adiourned the case subject to Payment of costs to the prosecution. It is this order which was challenged by the accused before the Court of Session. Sholapur, The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the authorities cited before him including an unreported judgment of my learned brother Chandrachud, J. in Criminal Revn. Appln. No. 467 of 1962 delivered on 11-9-1962 (Bom) is of the view that the Magistrate would have been better advised if he had adjourned the case without inflicting the costs. While coming to this conclusion he also observed that he had a good reason to believe that, more than financial loss or the prejudice caused to the accused on account of the error in exercise of discretion by the learned Magistrate. It was the sense of ego of the Counsel which was hurt and which had afforded the grievance. Mr. Apte, the learned advocate, obiects to these observations on the ground thai the learned Sessions Judge had not given anv reason for these observations as regards the ego of the Counsel anywhere in his judgment. I wish the learned Sessions Judge had not made these observations because they were not necessary. The learned Sessions Judge was, however, not inclined to refer the matter although he was not hadpv with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. He therefore, dismissed the revision application. It is this order Dass-ed by the learned Sessions Judge that is challenged here. The onlv point that arises here for consideration is whether the order passed by the learned Masistrate adjourning the case subiect to the payment of costs to the prosecution witnesses on 1-4-1971 is legal and proper.
(2.) MR. Apte, the learned advocate for the petitioners, invites mv attention to Section 14 of the Bombav Pleaders Act, 1920 and says that this section provides that the proceedings before a Court shall be staved for such time as the Court mav deem reasonable if the Pleader emoloved in anv such proceedings informs that he would be unable to attend on account of his indisposition or anv other reasonable cause. If that is so. under the Bombav Pleaders Act if the Pleader employed in a proceeding is unable to attend the Court on account of his indisposition or anv other reasonable cause the Court has to stav the proceedings for such time as the Court mav deem reasonable. So far as the facts and circumstances of our case are concerned, Mr. Dhamankar was not a Pleader under the Bombay Pleaders Act but an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
(3.) THEREFORE in the normal course the provisions of the Bombav Pleaders Act will not apply. There is no Provision similar to Section 14 of the Bombay Pleaders Act in the Advocates Act. 1961. Although such a provision is not there in the Advocates Act. vet the principle of Section 14 of the Bombav Pleaders Act is generally kept in mind whenever a lawyer is unable to attend on account of his indisposition or anv other reasonable cause.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.