Madras High Court Deprecates Trend Of Implicating Advocates As Accused For Offences Alleged Against Their Clients

Justice Murali Shankar of the Madurai Bench observed:

"A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately. The practice of implicating the Advocates along with their clients for the offences alleged to have committed by the clients is to be condemned and such a practice is to be deprecated."

In the present case, the advocate who was representing the accused was charged with Sections 147, 454, 341 and 506(i) IPC for rioting, house trespass, criminal intimidation etc. The de facto complainant had alleged that when he and his family members were away, the petitioner along with the other accused trespassed into the house and had stolen Rs. 1,00,000 cash, one laptop and some documents and when the complainants came back to the house, they were intimidated.

The counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the alteration report, the Sub-Inspector had specifically stated that the allegation of stealing cash, laptop and other documents was not true and there was no such stolen items and that the de facto complainant with evil intention to implicate the accused with theft case, has raised false allegations. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he was present in the property along with the other accused.

It was also submitted that the petitioner had visited the property along with the Advocate Commissioner who was appointed in the civil suit between the parties to inspect the property. The same can be evidenced from the report of the advocate commissioner where he marks the presence of the petitioner, the plaintiff's counsel. Even the prosecution did not have a case that the petitioner had any other connection with the parties or the disputed properties except the professional relationship with the accused.

Agreeing with the aforesaid, the court observed that the work of an advocate is not limited to the courts and they were expected to visit the property in question and have direct information about the disputed property. It was also the duty of the advocate to accompany the Advocate Commissioner for inspecting the property. The court observed:

"The Advocates are supposed to be fearless and independent in the protection of rights of litigants. It is their duty to press their clients' cases strenuously and to the best of their ability and an Advocate must, no doubt, give his very best to every cause that he pleads for his client. The nature of work of an Advocate is not only limited to the Courts and they are expected to visit the property in dispute or the scene of occurrence to have first hand and direct information about the property in dispute or the occurrence scene. Moreover it is their bounder duty to accompany the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the cases for inspecting the disputed property and for other purposes"

The court also noted that the legal profession could not be equated with any other traditional profession and it is not commercial in nature and is a noble profession considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society

Thus, the court was of the view that permitting the prosecution to proceed against the petitioner was totally unwarranted and the same was an abuse of the process of law. Hence, the court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.

Case Title: P.Velumani v. The State and another

Case No: Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3653 of 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 296

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate(Crl.Side)