( 1 ) AT the very outset I must thank Mr. K. J. Shethna who has represented the Bar Council of Gujarat having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

( 2 ) BY the impugned order the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 11 Ahmedabad City directed that the petitioner R. J. Lakhia a practising Advocate should be produced before him by issuing summons to him and he further directed that he should stand his trial together with three accused persons for the commission of the offences of cheating and conspiracy with original accused Nos. 1 2 and 3 of Sessions Case No. 84 of 1981 of the court of the learned City Sessions Judge Ahmedabad.

( 3 ) WHEN this matter was called out for hearing and final disposal I had an anxious look at Mr. A. J. Patel the learned Public Prosecutor who was in-charge of the matter on behalf of the State of Gujarat and I am happy to state that at the very outset of the hearing of this application he made an admirable statement that the impugned order could not be even countenance by him. I may also add at this very stage that it was the attitude of the Bar Council of Gujarat that the impugned order should be set aside.

( 4 ) MR. H. K. Thakore who appeared on behalf of the petitioneradvocate brought to my notice certain few and relevant facts which had given rise to the application which was filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court and the order thereon.

( 5 ) A few relevant facts may be stated at this stage.

( 6 ) IN the aforesaid Sessions Case it was the prosecution case that one Baijnath had three sons and three daughters and the second daughter Krishnavati is married to one Kanaiyalal who is accused No. 3 in the case. Her husband Kanaiyalal is accused No. 2 in the Sessions case and he is the brother of one Chandrapal Awasam who is accused No. 1 in the said Sessions Case.

( 7 ) IT was alleged by the prosecution that on 26th of December 1980 accused No. 3 Krishnavati had gone to her fathers house in the company of her mother-in-law. After going there accused No. 3s mother-inlaw was well treated and thereafter she gave Rs. 5. 00 to accused No. 3 to bring some materials from the market. Accused No. 3 was about to start for the purchase of the materials and at that point of time accused No. 3s mother-in-law suggested to her to take Kamla with her. Thereafter Kamla and accused No. 3 had left the house and went at Dr. Godanis Dispensary in Saraspur and according to the prosecution accused Nos. 1 and 2 were there. It was the prosecution case that accused No. 1 was the rickshaw driver. He suggested to accused No. 3 and Kamla to go with him at Mahakali Temple and at that suggestion accused No. 3 and Kamla sat in the rickshaw.

( 8 ) IT may be once again emphasised at this stage that the petitioner-Advocate is a practising Advocate in the courts of Ahmedabad. All the aforesaid three accused persons having sat in the rickshaw came near Gheekanta Road Ahmedabad and stopped the rickshaw near the compound of Criminal Courts. It is further alleged that there accused No. 1 got down and he told accused No. 3 that he was arrested in a prohibition case and if Kamla gave her signature on a writing then he would be released on bail and for that purpose Kamlas presence was necessary. At that time accused No. 3 refused to send Kamla with him but she was persuaded by accused No. 1 and so accused No. 2 and Kamla went in the compound of criminal courts. It may be significantly noticed at this stage that it was not the prosecution case that any of the three accused persons had ever met the petitioner Advocate prior to what had happened on 26/12/1980 till the rickshaw stopped near the compound of Criminal courts. For the first time it is alleged that in the compound of the Criminal court one Advocate of advanced age was present and that a clerk of the Advocate was also present. Besides them there were two other persons present. It was the prosecution case that the Advocate to