The main legal point established is the virtually absolute nature of advocate privilege under S.126 of the Evidence Act and the duty of the court to assess the relevance of evidence before issuing summons.

1. Complainant before the trial court is the petitioner. The allegation made by him in the complaint is that the accused committed an offence under S.500 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was filed through his advocate Sri.T.R.Raman Pillai. Prior to the filing of that Sri.Raman Pillai issued a notice on behalf of the complainant, intimating the accused that appropriate legal steps including civil action for realising damages and criminal action for redressal of grievances of complainant will be resorted to.

2. Complaint has been entertained by the learned Magistrate. Summons was issued to the accused. On the side of the complainant five witnesses were examined. Defence examined D.W.1. Thereafter accused requested the court to issue witness summons to the complainant's advocate Sri. T.R.Raman Pillai to appear and to give evidence for the defence. Sri. Raman Pillai filed a petition stating that his presence in pursuance of the summons and his examination on oath may be dispensed with. He pointed out that notice issued by him and produced by the accused in the case may be accepted as an exhibit for defence and that he need not be examined to prove the same. Learned Magistrate dismissed that petition stating:

"It is not expedient for the court at this stage to pass orders dispensing with the examination of the defence witness prayed for."

Accordingly court directed issue of fresh summons to the "defence witness". This action of the learned Magistrate is under challenge.

3. Under S.126 of the Evidence Act no advocate shall be permitted to disclose any communication made to him in the course of and for the purpose of his duties as an advocate, unless his client expressly consents so to do. Nor can an advocate be compelled to state the contents of any document which he became acquainted with in the course of his professional employment. This protection will not extend to communications made in furtherance of any illegal purpose and to facts observed by him during his employment evidencing the commission of any crime or fraud. When an advocate is professionally engaged by a client, all communications which pass between them in the course and for the purpose of the employment are privileged and the advocate cannot be permitted to disclose them. Such a statement, even if volunteered by the counsel, is inadmissible in evidence.

4. Under S.14 of the Official Secrets Act, court can order exclusion of the public from any proceeding on the ground that publication of any evidence given in the course of the proceedings would be prejudicial to the safety of the State. In a proceeding under this Act, held in camera, defence lawyer was allowed to take copious notes of the statements of witnesses in order to be in a position to cross-examine the witnesses. Subsequently the Magistrate directed the lawyer to produce his note book to examine whether only summary of evidence was taken or whether the statements were taken in extenso. Advocate refused to show the note book and claimed privilege under S.126 of the Evidence Act. Magistrate accepted the plea of privilege. High Court disagreed with this view and suggested legal action against the lawyer for flouting the order of court by not producing the note book on the plea of privilege. On appeal (Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Bhowmick (A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 917) the Supreme Court held that there was no impropriety on the part of the Magistrate in not taking action against the defence lawyer for his refusal to show his register because the lawyer has rightly claimed privilege under S.126 of the Evidence Act. As the register contained instructions given by the client, it could not be disclosed. On a parity of reasoning the Supreme Court found no impropriety on the conduct of the lawyer in refusing to show the statement of witnesses recorded in extenso in order to prepare himself for effectively cross examining the witnesses. From this it is evident that the privilege under