Orissa High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Lawyer Accused Of Taking Money To Bribe Judge For Bail

The Orissa High Court recently declined to dismiss a criminal case against an advocate accused of accepting money, gold, and property deeds from a client in exchange for securing favorable bail outcomes from a now-retired High Court Judge.

The single bench comprising Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra underscored the need for strict measures to uphold public confidence in the judicial system and directed the Orissa State Bar Council to hold an inquiry into the allegations against the petitioner-advocate.

"In so far as the prayer to quash the F.I.R. as sought in the present petition is concerned, this Court is not inclined to do so as the allegations are not only at a nascent stage of investigation but also as quite serious in nature as the name of a former Judge of this Court has been soiled. The informant has given meticulous details of the demands made which correlate to the period when the matter was pending before this Court. Therefore, the present petition deserves no merit. Hence, the CRLMC is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) to be deposited by the Petitioner before the District Legal Services Authority, Cuttack within two weeks.”, the court said.

Following her husband's bail denial, the informant allegedly provided Rs. 16,35,000, gold jewelry, and property deeds at the petitioner-advocate's direction to secure her husband's release by bribing the Judge.

The FIR includes phone messages and photos as evidence, with the informant alleging that, after her husband's bail denial, the petitioner demanded an additional ₹16 lakhs for a new application.

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

The informant claims the petitioner filed false bail applications using her husband's signature and later failed to keep a promise to return her money and documents, prompting her to file an FIR against the petitioner.

Considering the allegations to be serious, the Court was not inclined to quash the case against the petitioner and instead reminded the role of the Bar Councils to guard professional ethics of the professional on account of taking action against "a few black sheep which may shake the credibility of the profession and thereby put at stake other members of the Bar."

Referring to the case of R. Muthukrishnan vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, the Court observed that the advocacy being a noble profession must refrain from exercising collusion and corruption, and instead maintain ethical standards in the profession.

"It is the ethical duty of lawyers not to expect any favour from a Judge. He must rely on the precedents, read them carefully and avoid corruption and collusion of any kind, not to make false pleadings and avoid twisting of facts. In a profession, everything cannot be said to be fair even in the struggle for survival. The ethical standard is uncompromisable. Honesty, dedication and hard work is the only source towards perfection. An advocate's conduct is supposed to be exemplary. In case an advocate causes disrepute of the Judges or his colleagues or involves himself in misconduct, that is the most sinister and damaging act which can be done to the entire legal system."

Since, the allegations of professional misconduct against the petitioner ought to be looked into by the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court directed the State Bar Council to hold an inquiry upon providing a fair chance to both parties.

"In view of the discussion hereinabove, before disposing of this application, this Court deem it necessary to issue directions, in the facts of the present case, as required to subserve the cause of justice. This Court, therefore, directs the Bar Council of Orissa to hold an inquiry into the allegations. The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Bar Council of Orissa. The Bar Council of Orissa shall hold Disciplinary Proceedings uninfluenced by any observations made above and by affording ample opportunity to all concerned to participate in the proceedings."

Accordingly, 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