STATE Vs. PT. JIA LAL KILAM, CH. GHULAM ABBAS AND KH. GHULAM MOHD. SADIQ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Pt. Jia Lal Kilam, Ch. Ghulam Abbas and Kh. Ghulam Mohd. Sadiq who are legal practitioners were convicted under section 188 of the Ranbir Penal Code and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. After the convictions notices were issued to them under clause 19 (b) of the Constitution of the High Court to show cause as to why they should not be dealt with under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The respondents appeared before us. Mr. Harbans Bhagat also appeared as amicus curiae on behalf of the Bar Association Jammu.

(2.) On 11th Bhadon 1995 corresponding to 26th Aug. 1938, the District Magistrate Kashmir promulgated an order under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and by that order prohibited the taking out of processions and of holding of public meeting of a political nature within the limits of Srinagar Municipality for a period of one month. On 15th Bhadon 1995 i.e. 30th Aug. Pt. Jia Lal Kilam led a procession in the town of Srinagar in defiance of the order of the District Magistrate referred to above and was convicted under section 188 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10. Ch. Ghulam Abbas also defied the order of the District Magistrate and on 27th Bhadon i.e. 11th Sept. 1938 he delivered a speech in a political meeting in Khanqah-I-Moula Srinagar. He was also convicted under section 88 and sentenced to five months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 125. Kh. Ghulam Mohd. Sadiq attended a political meeting in Srinagar on 14th Bhadon 1995 i.e. 29th Aug. 1938 in defiance of the District Magistrate's order and delivered a speech. He was also convicted under section 188 and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate submitted that as Vakils of this Court it was the duty of the respondents to respect and maintain law but as they have deliberately defied the law they have rendered themselves liable to be dealt with under the disciplinary jurisdiction of this Court and that suitable action should be taken against them. In support of this submission the learned Government Advocates has cited the following rulings of the British Indian High Courts:-