The Orissa High Court recently refused to dismiss a criminal case against a lawyer accused of accepting money, gold and property securities from a client in exchange for obtaining favorable bail results from a now-retired High Court judge.

The single bank that includes Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra underlined the need for strict measures to maintain public confidence in the judicial system and directed the Orissa State Bar Council to conduct an inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner lawyer.

“As far as the prayer for quashing of the FIR as sought in the present petition is concerned, this Court is not willing to do so as the allegations are not only at a nascent stage of investigation but are also of such serious nature. as the name of a former Judge of this Court has been tarnished. The informant has given minute details of the claims made which correlate with the period when the matter was pending before this Court. Therefore, the present petition does not deserve merit. any. at a cost of Rs 10,000 (ten thousand rupees) which the petitioner shall deposit with the District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack, within a period of two weeks.”the court said.

Following the denial of bail to her husband, the informant allegedly provided Rs. 16,35,000, gold jewelery and property titles on the order of the petitioner lawyer to secure the release of her husband by bribing the judge.

The FIR includes phone messages and photographs as evidence and the informant alleges that after her husband denied bail, the petitioner demanded an additional ₹16 lakhs for a fresh application.

When she requested the return of the case records, money and property titles, the petitioner allegedly refused and threatened her, claiming judicial influence to block her husband’s bail.

The informant claims that the petitioner filed false bail applications using her husband’s signature and then failed to fulfill her promise to return the money and documents, prompting her to lodge an FIR against the petitioner.

Considering the accusations serious, the Court was not willing to annul the case against the petitioner and, instead, recalled the role of the Bar Associations in protecting the professional ethics of the professional by taking measures against “a few black sheep who can undermine the credibility of the profession and thus put other members of the Bar at risk.”

Referring to the case of R. Muthukrishnan v. Registrar General, Madras High Court of Judiciary, the Court observed that law being a noble profession, it must refrain from collusion and corruption and instead maintain ethical standards in the profession.

“It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favor from a Judge. They must rely on precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not make false allegations and avoid misrepresentation of facts. In a profession No It can be said that everything is fair, even in the fight for survival. The ethical standard is uncompromising. Honesty, dedication and hard work are the only source of perfection. The conduct of a lawyer must be exemplary. Judges or their colleagues or engages in misconduct, that is the most sinister and damaging act that can be done to the entire legal system.”

Since the allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner were to be examined by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court directed the State Bar Council to conduct an investigation to provide a fair opportunity to both parties.

“In view of the above discussion, before resolving this suit, this Court finds it necessary to issue directions, in the facts of the present case, as required to serve the cause of justice. This Court, therefore, directs the College of Bar Council of Orissa will conduct an inquiry into the allegations. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Orissa. The Bar Council of Orissa will conduct disciplinary proceedings. without being influenced by any of the observations made above and giving ample opportunity to all interested parties to participate in the procedure.”

Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 88

Appearance:

For the petitioner: Mr. Surya Narayan Biswal, Advocate

For the Opp. Party: Mr. Sangram Keshari Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Sambit Samal Versus State of Odisha

Click here to read/download the judgment