SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(SC) 250

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
R.K. Lakshmanan, Appellant
Versus
A. K. Srinivasan and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No, 130 of 1975 D/-1-8-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K. T. Harindranath, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. T. T. Kunhikanan, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. S. Nambiar, Advocate (for No. 1) and Mr. K. R. Nambiar, Advocate (for No. 2), for Respondents. 1742

Advocates:
A.S.NAMBIYAR, K.R.NAMBIAR, K.T.Harindernath, T.T.KUNHIKANNAN

Headnote:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 342 and 561-A - Appeal against Judgment - Application for Expunction of Certain Remarks - Appellant is a member of Kerala Judicial service, while respondent herein is an Advocate practicing at Ernakulam - Appellant was working as District Magistrate, Ernakulam - One Kamalasanan, who was an accused in C. C. pending before him, was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties in like amount - Two sureties were Kamaleswaran, brother of the accused, and Sri Thankappan Nair. Thankappan s address was given as "businessman. son of Parameswaran Pillai, Trivandrum". affidavit filed by Thankappan, while offering himself as surety, was attested by Advocate stating : "solemnly affirmed at Ernakulam on this 14th day of August 1973 and signed before me who is personally known to me – Held, There is no such person as far as they could gather from the detailed inquiries made and therefore notice could not be served". Manifestly, this statement did not present a faithful and correct picture of the endorsement of the process server. Evidently this misleading stand was taken by "the appellant to show that action under section 476, Criminal Procedure code against the Advocate would not be groundless. In these premises it cannot be said that the observations of the High Court that "information furnished to this Court by the District Magistrate in his report dated 3-11-1973 regarding the contents of the Police report is grossly inaccurate and misleading" was unjustified - Issue of the impugned notice to the Advocate by the appellant was illegal and arbitrary and amounted to a gross abuse of the process of the Court. These remarks were an integral part of the reasoning of the High Court. They were not irrelevant or foreign to the matter in issue. They were inextricably intertwined with the findings and the order recorded by the High Court in that case. Excision of these remarks would emasculate the order of the High Court, robbing it of its very rationale - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

SARKARIA,J.:- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the Kerala High Court rejecting the appellant s application under Section 561-A, Criminal Procedure Code for expunction of certain remarks made against him in the High Court s Order, dated 20-11-1973, in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 967 of 1973.

2. The appellant is a member of the Kerala Judicial service, while the respondent herein is an Advocate practicing at Ernakulam. On 14-8-1973, the appellant was working as District Magistrate, Ernakulam. One Kamalasanan, who was an accused in C. C. Nos. 216 and 217 of 1973 pending before him, was ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties in the like amount. The two sureties were Kamaleswaran, the brother of the accused, and Sri Thankappan Nair. Thankappan s address was given as "businessman. son of Parameswaran Pillai, Thambanoor, Trivandrum". The affidavit filed by Thankappan, while offering himself as surety, was attested by Sri A. K. Srinivasan Advocate stating : "solemnly affirmed at Ernakulam on this 14th day of August 1973 and signed before me who is personally known to me."

3. The above cases stood posted for examination of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When on that date the cases were called for hearing, the accused was absent. His counsel Shri Srinivasan appeared and represented that although he had no information from the accused, who had to come from Trivandrum, yet he was expecting him to reach the court in time. The appellant (District Magistrate) thereupon ordered cancellation of the bail bonds and directed issue of notices to the surety under Section 514 of the code of criminal Procedure calling upon him to show cause before 16-10-1973 why the terms of the surety bonds providing for forfeiture of the sum of Rs. 1,000 be not enforced. The notices issued to the surety Thankappan Nair were returned unserved whereupon on the 17th October 1973 the appellant issued a nonbailable warrant for the arrest of the Surety. On the following day, the appellant issued a notice to Sri A. K. Srinivasan, Advocate which ran as under:

"Ernakulam District Magistrate Court No.

M. C. 106 and M. C. 107 of 1973.

Notice for Shri A. K. Srinivasan,

Advocate

The abovementioned cases are being fixed for hearing on 3-11-1973 at 11 A. M. You are required to appear before the Court.

By Order

Sd/

Saristadar."

18th October, 1973

4. It may be mentioned here that in the proceedings initiated under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the two cases, Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate was not the duly constituted attorney for the Surety, Thankappan.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid notice, Mr. Srinivasan, Advocate filed Cri. M. P. 967 of 1973 before the High Court of Kerala under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the appellant be directed to withdraw the notice, dated 18-10-1973, on the ground that the issue of notice was arbitrary and amounted to an abuse of the process of the court because-

(a) There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code empowering the Magistrate to issue such a notice to command the Advocate s appearance when he is not connected either as a witness or a party or otherwise with the proceedings relating to cancellation of bail-bonds;

(b) The notice was issued to humiliate him and the Bar since the latter had passed a resolution, on 21-7-1973, protesting against the improper and discourteous treatment meted out by the Magistrate to the members of the Bar.

6. The learned Judge of the High Court, before whom this petition came up for hearing, by an order dated 2-11-1973, called for a report from the appellant by 5-11-1973 regarding the allegations contained in the Advocate s petition and particularly as to under which provision of law and under what circumstances he had thought it fit to issue a notice to the Advocate requiring him to appear before, him on 3-11-1973. The appellant thereupon submitted the report to

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top