Section 126 of the Indian Evidence Act does not provide absolute immunity from disclosure for communications between a client and a lawyer. The privilege is limited in its scope and does not extend to communications made in furtherance of an illegal purpose.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code praying that the prosecution of the petitioner Sri K. C. Sonrexa under Section 500 Indian Penal Code be dropped and the proceeding be quashed under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are as follows : Sri K. C. Sonrexa who was an employee of the uttar Pradesh State was found guilty of misconduct by a Tribunal specially appointed to enquire into his case and on the findings of the Tribunal the Uttar Pradesh State terminated his services. Sri Sonrexa was aggrieved by this dismissal as according to him it was illegal and he sent a notice under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code through a counsel Sri H. C. Saksena. According to the prosecution the said notice contained highly defamatory aspersions against the members of the Tribunal and so the Public Prosecutor, Lucknow, filed a complaint under Section 500 Indian Penal Code read with Section 198-B Criminal Procedure Code both against Sri sonrexa and Sri H. C. Saksena. The said notice was not signed by Sri Sonrexa and his contention is that he cannot be held liable for any defamatory aspersions if they exist in the notice and his lawyer alone was responsible for its contents. According to his contention his prosecution is absolutely illegal for there is no evidence to connect him with this crime and in view of Section 126 Evidence Act Sri H. C. Saksena cannot be permitted to disclose the instructions given by him to his lawyer. It appears that the defence of Sri H. C. Saksena is that he acted only on the instructions of Sri Sonrexa and the alleged defamatory imputations were made at the instance of Sri Sonrexa whom he believed and trusted. In other words he pleads good faith under exception 9 to Section 499 Indian Penal code. Sri Sonrexa does hot want this plea to be advanced by Sri H. C. Saksena as it would prejudice his case and also because in his opinion this plea is not open to him under the law. He has, therefore, come up to the High Court with this petition.

( 3 ) THE inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code are very wide but on account of this very reason they are to be applied in a very careful manner. Every time those special powers are used it amounts to a disturbance of the normal procedure of law and frequent use of such powers is bound to create a feeling that the normal procedure is not sufficient to maintain the rule of law. An extraordinary power should be used only in an extraordinary case. Section 561-A is not an instrument handed over to accused persons to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death, whenever their counsel feel that the prosecution is not likely to succeed. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case whose picture is extremely incomplete and hazy as the evidence has not been produced and the issues involved whether factual or legal cannot be seen in their true perspective. There are, several decisions in which I have already given my views as to when these powers should be used under this provision of law. It is, therefore, not necessary for me to cover the same grounds again. It is only where the High Court is satisfied that it amounts to an abuse of a process of law or that it amounts to a persecution of an accused person or that there is no reasonable possibility of the prosecution succeeding in the case or some similar reason that relief is granted under Section 561-A Criminal Procedure Code.

( 4 ) SRI V. P. Misra, appeared on behalf of the petitioner and I have heard him at length. He drew my attention to the various passages which have been made the subject-matter of the proceedings against the applicant under Section 500 Indian Penal Code. A mere perusal of these statements is sufficient to indicate that imputations were made against the members of the Tribunal to the effect that they acted in an absolutely unjudicial manner, t