Lawyer Cannot Be Booked For Asking On-Duty CBI Officers For Their Identity Cards: Bombay High Court

An advocate cannot be booked for 'obstructing' a government servant (CBI Officers) from discharging his duty, just because he asks a team of CBI officers, conducting raid/search operations, to show their Identity Cards (ID), the Bombay High Court held on Thursday (November 21).

Single-judge Justice Milind Jadhav discharged two advocates and a law intern (then), who were booked in 2007 for obstructing CBI officers from conducting search operations at the premises of one of their clients in Mumbai.

"Mere restraint of an official would not amount to an offence under Section 353 of IPC. Nature of restraint is crucial. Asking the CBI Officers to show their identity cards is not restraining them from carrying out their duty. This is the only thing that has transpired in the pesent case leading to the indictment of Applicants. Applicant No. 1 was the Advocate of the party concerned. Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have unnecessarily suffered the consequences of the above action due to no fault of their," Justice Jadhav said in the judgment.

In the present case, the judge noted, there was no restraint made by Applicants. The bench in clear words said that the instant one was "an undoubtable case of wounded ego and affront caused to the CBI Officer" when he was asked to show his identity card and identify himself which led to subsequent events and complaint against Applicants under Section 353 IPC.

"Asking the CBI Officers to disclose their identity cards cannot be considered as an act of assault or criminal force. To bring home the offence under Section 353 IPC, prosecution is required to prove the essential ingredients of Section 353 IPC which are that the accused assaulted or used criminal force on them (CBI Officers), that the public servant at the time of the offence was acting in the discharge of a duty imposed on him by law. In the present case none of the ingredients have been proven prima facie," the judge observed.

The judge remarked that the instant case was a classic case of "abuse of powers exercised by the CBI Officers / staff."

"Only because the CBI Officer on being asked to show his identity card was irked, the CBI Officers prompting him to immediately call the Police Authorities and get the Applicants arrested by foisting Section 353 IPC. The Police Authorities have also blindly played a subservient role to the CBI Officers by arresting the Applicants without application of mind about the applicability of Section 353 IPC," Justice Jadhav said,

The judge therefore, imposed a cost of Rs 15,000 each to be paid to the three applicant advocates for their implication in the said FIR.

"The costs are awarded in order to send a clear message to the Law Enforcement Agencies to ensure that legal provisions are not misused by them so as to cause irreparable hardship and sufferance to the common man and citizens of this country and that Rule of law prevails," Justice Jadhav made it clear. 

As far as the third applicant is concerned, the judge noted, he was a law intern at the relevant time and was only 17 years of age.

"Lives of three Applicants before me who are professional Advocates at the Bar today have been stigmatized because of the stigma of accused attached to their names for the past 17 years. How long can the Applicants suffer the hanging sword of damocles on their heads of they having been arraigned as accused in the present case?" the judgment reads.

This Court, the judge said, can only imagine what must have gone through the mind of a young college going law student i.e. Applicant No. 3 who was interning with Applicant No. 1's firm as a Law Intern.

"...at the then time to have suffered the ignominy, disgrace and infamy when at the threshold of stepping into this noble profession he was arrested. Applicant No. 3 is present before me and is now a practising Advocate at the Bar. He is 38 years old today. That apart, both Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 have also clearly suffered due to the complaint filed under Section 353 IPC for being labelled as accused and being on bail for the last 17 years. The best years in the life of the Advocates / Applicants before me have been spent in anxiety and running from Court to Court to vindicate their names and seek exoneration," the judge, noted.

With these observations the bench discharged the three lawyers.

Appearance:

Advocate Meenal Chandnani appeared for Applicants.

Additional Public Prosecutor Manisha Tidke represented the State.

Case Title: Gobindram Talreja vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application 559 of 2024)

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 609

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment