The Orissa High Court recently refused to dismiss a criminal case against a lawyer accused of accepting money, gold and property deeds from a client in exchange for obtaining favorable bail results from a now-retired High Court Judge.

consisting of a single bench Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra He underlined the need to take stringent measures to maintain public confidence in the judicial system and directed the Orissa State Bar Council to investigate the allegations against the plaintiff-lawyer.

“So far as the prayer for quashing the FIR is concerned in the present petition, this Court is not inclined to do so as the allegations are not only at a nascent stage of investigation but are also as serious in nature as the name of the FIR itself. The statement of a former Judge of this Court is tainted .The informant has given detailed details of the demands for the period during which the case was pending before this Court, therefore, the present petition has no merit. It shall be deposited by the Petitioner with the Cuttack District Legal Services Authority.”said the court.

After her husband was denied bail, the informant allegedly provided Rs. 16,35,000, gold ornaments and property deeds to ensure the release of her husband by bribing the judge on the instructions of the petitioner-lawyer.

The FIR includes phone messages and photographs as evidence; The informant claims that after her husband was denied bail, the petitioner demanded an additional ₹16 lakh for a fresh application.

When she demanded the return of case files, money and property titles, the petitioner allegedly refused and threatened her, claiming judicial influence to prevent her husband from being granted bail.

The informant alleges that the petitioner filed fake bail applications using her husband’s signature and later broke his promise to return her money and documents, prompting her to file an FIR against the petitioner.

Considering the seriousness of the allegations, the Court was not inclined to quash the case against the applicant and instead recalled the role of Bar Councils in protecting the professional ethics of the professional due to proceedings being brought against him. “Several disgraces that could undermine the credibility of the profession and thereby endanger other members of the Bar.”

Referring to the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General in the Madras High Court of Judicature, the Court observed that since the practice of law is a noble profession, one should avoid collusion and corruption and instead maintain ethical standards in the profession.

“It is the moral duty of lawyers not to expect any favors from the judge. They should trust the jurisprudence, read them carefully and avoid all kinds of corruption and collusion, not make false statements and avoid distorting the facts. In a profession, not everything can be said to be fair, even in the struggle for survival. In case a lawyer’s reputation is damaged , honesty, dedication and hard work are the only source of excellence, implicating judges or colleagues or oneself in abuses is the worst thing that can be done to the entire legal system. and harmful action.”

Since allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner had to be examined by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court directed the State Bar Council to hold an inquiry after giving a fair chance to both parties.

“In view of the above discussion, before deciding this application, this Court considers it necessary to issue such directions as are necessary in the facts of the present case to serve the purpose of justice. Therefore, this Court directs the Bar Council. Letter of this Court The Director of Affairs (Judiciary) is directed to forward a copy of this decision to the Secretary of the Orissa Bar Association, which will conduct the Disciplinary Proceedings without being influenced by the aforesaid views and give ample opportunity to all concerned to participate in the proceedings. by knowing.”

Accordingly, the petition was denied.

Quote: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 88

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Surya Narayan Biswal, Advocate

For opp. Party : Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Sambit Samal vs. State of Odisha

Click to read/download the decision