Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers

The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association has decided to organise a protest meeting tomorrow at 1:10 PM  against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai. The meeting will be held at the portico of the Kerala High Court on Tuesday. 

This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate on February 14 notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case. 

A witness in the assault case, Jinson was allegedly threatened to turn hostile and to depose in favour of actor Dileep before the Additional Special Sessions Judge by one Naseer. Dileep is the 8th accused in the 2017 case where a popular Malayalam actress was abducted and raped in a moving car pursuant to a conspiracy.   

The Crime Branch claimed that the counsel's statement was necessary to proceed with the investigation in an FIR registered in connection with the alleged intimidation of this witness. Accordingly, the notice stated that officials would reach his residence or his office on February 16  at 9 am to record his statement. This time and date seem to have been postponed over a telephone conversation as it appears from the reply submitted by Raman Pillai. 

The notice had also called for a reply from the senior advocate. Strongly condemning the notice, the Executive Committee of KHCAA decided to convene a protest meeting tomorrow at 1.10 PM.

In his reply dated February 18, Pillai has strongly objected to the issuance of the notice calling it an illegality. He added that he was issuing a reply solely because he was bound by the Advocate's Act and the standards of professional conduct formulated by the Bar Council of India. 

The senior advocate had stated that being a lawyer defending an accused in a case,  to ask him to share information and communications about the case, which have been explicitly protected by law as privileged communication under 126 of the Indian Evidence Act, was illegal. He also pointed out that an FIR alleging tampering of evidence with respect to a case under trial is not maintainable as per Section 195 CrPC and the proper course is to file a complaint before the concerned trial court. The senior lawyer referred to last year's Kerala High Court judgment which quashed the FIRs against Enforcement Directorate over tampering allegations in the gold smuggling case citing the bar under Section 195 CrPC.

Accordingly, he urged that the notice be withdrawn particularly since it was issued with no sanction of law. However, if the officials of the Crime branch still insist, it was made clear that the senior counsel would make himself available for the same on the decided date and time.