Orissa HC Dismisses Plea To Quash Case Against Advocate Accused Of Demanding Bribe From Client Allegedly To Influence Judge
The Orissa High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an Advocate accused of demanding bribe from a client allegedly to influence a judge in a bail matter. The Bar Council of Orissa has also been directed by the Court to conduct an enquiry into such allegations and accordingly hold the necessary disciplinary proceedings.
The petitioner had approached the Orissa High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the F.I.R. registered against him pending in the Court of the J.M.F.C. (City),Cuttack.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held, “...the yardstick or standard as expected from members of the bar while dealing with the litigants who come to the doorsteps of justice has been set to be of a high standard, what is also set out is that corresponding high standard of professional integrity expected of advocates.”
Advocate Surya Narayan Biswal represented the petitioner while Additional Standing Counsel Sangram Keshari Mishra represented the respondent.
The informant, who is the wife of an accused in a case under the OPID Act had approached this Court on earlier occasion seeking bail. It had been alleged in the F.I.R that the informant had paid a total of Rs.16,35,000 through a person as per the petitioner’s instruction. It was thereafter alleged that as per the petitioner’s instruction, the informant gave him one gold chain of 65 grams and one gold bracelet of 50 grams for the daughter's marriage of the then Judge, who was supposed to hear the bail matter of her husband.
It was also alleged that the petitioner also asked for handing over some original title deeds/land record alongwith for the purpose of securing bail. When the bail plea was dismissed, the petitioner thereafter demanded an additional sum of Rs.16 lakh to file a fresh bail application. It was alleged that on requisitioning the return of their case file, original land documents, the Petitioner denied the same and further thretened that because of his connections and links her husband would never get bail. The informant came to Cuttack in a final attempt to get back the money, original documents, mobiles, gold ornaments and case files etc.
Highlighting the fact that the advocate enjoys the implicit faith of the court and also acts as an ambassador of the law to the society at large, the Bench said, “Therefore, such conduct is unbecoming of an advocate.”
It was suggested from the facts of the case that Petitioner had insinuated and attributed wrong doing to a former judge of the Court. As per the Bench, it was even inconceivable that a common litigant would cook up such a grave allegation as had been made in the present case against a high constitutional functionary. “Of course, the entirety of the truth of the matter can only be unearthed during the course of a detailed investigation, all that can be said that at this stage is that given the grave allegations of impropriety which touch upon the sanguineness of the judicial edifice, the present case needs a thorough and impartial investigation to get to the bottom of the matter”, it added.
Coming to the aspect of professional and other misconduct as provided for under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and others (1975) 2 SCC 702 as well as Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar Vs. Bar and said, “An advocate owes a duty to the client as well as to the court. In cases where an advocate has violated the confidence of the Client have been dealt with sternly by the courts.”
Not only this but there were also allegations against the Petitioner that he had acted without authority i.e., by using some blank papers with the signatures of the husband of the informant which amount to professional misconduct as well.
After a perusal of the judicial pronouncements and the Advocates Act, the Bench held, “...in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a strong action needs to be taken in order to maintain the faith of the litigant and the society at large. Provisions under Chapter-V of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 provide for a mechanism of dealing with cases of professional misconduct on the part of advocates.”
Coming back to the facts of the case, the Bench directed the Bar Council of Orissa to hold an inquiry into the allegations and also hold Disciplinary Proceedings by affording ample opportunity to all concerned to participate in the proceedings.
Considering the fact that the informant had given meticulous details of the demands made which correlated to the period when the matter was pending before this Court, the Bench held, “Therefore, the present petition deserves no merit. Hence, the CRLMC is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000.”
Cause Title: Sambit Samal vs State of Odisha [Case No. CRLMC No.2078 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Surya Narayan Biswal
Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Sangram Keshari Mishra