STATE OF ASSAM Vs. ABINASH CHANDRA
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
STATE OF ASSAM
Click here to view full judgement.
Thadani, C.J. -
(1.) THIS is a reference purporting to be a reference made by the learned District Judge, U. A. D. under S. 14. Legal Practitioners Act, in regard to the conduct of a Mukhtear called Abinash Chandra Chakravarty.
(2.) IT appears that a petition was forwarded to this Court by the Secretary, Mukhtears' Bar Association, Karimganj. Apparently, it was sent back by the Registrar to the District Judge, U. A. D. for action. Mr. Goswami who appears for the State has not been able to show to us that the powers of the High Court under S. 13, L.P. Act have been delegated to the Registrar of this Court. Prima facie, therefore, the forwarding of the papers to the District Judge, U. A. D. was not done under S. 13, L.P. Act. Apparently, the learned District Judge has also considered that the papers were not forwarded to him by the High Court under S. 13 , L.P. Act, in view of the fact that the reference to us has been made under S. 14, L.P. Act. There are obvious difficulties in the way of our entertaining this reference. It appears that the enquiry against the Mukhtear has been made by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Karimganj, It is plain from the language of S. 14 that action has to be taken by the Presiding Officer of the Court referred to in S. 14. Mr. Goswami concedes that the S. D. O. was not the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the alleged acts were done, but he contends that as he was one of the officers of that Court, he was justified in holding an enquiry under S. 14. We are unable to accept the contention that a Magistrate who is not the Presiding Officer of the Court in which the acts alleged were committed has jurisdiction to make an enquiry under S. 14, L.P. Act.
(3.) IT is clear from the record that the enquiry which the S. D. O. has made refers to two cases - -one under S. 193, Penal Code and another under S. 177, Penal Code - -brought against the Mukhtear in the Courts of two Magistrates who are not the same persons as the S. D. O. who has made the enquiry. Those cases are still pending, the S D. O. has taken those cases into consideration and has recommended that on the strength of the allegations made in those cases, the Mukhtear should be disqualified We do not think that it was proper for the S. D. O. to refer to the allegations made against the Mukhtear in regard to which cases are still sub judice. Manifestly the proceedings against the Mukhtear must await the result of those prosecutions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.