Madras High Court Orders Arrests Of Fake Advocate; Directs Publication Of His Photo In Newspapers To Find Out Clients Cheated By Him

The Madras High Court recently ordered enquiry against a fake advocate. The bench of Justice S Vaidyanathan and Justice AD Jagdish Chandra ordered the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City to conduct depute an officer who shall register a case in accordance with the law, arrest the fake advocate, and conduct a thorough investigation. 

We hereby direct the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police to depute an Officer in the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (CCB), Chennai, who shall register a case in accordance with law, arrest the 4th respondent for production of a fabricated document before this Court, conduct a thorough investigation, including his schooling and file a final report in this case. 

The court also directed the investigating officer to widely publish the photograph of the man, both in Tamil and English dailies circulating in the State of Tamil Nadu to find out if any persons have been deceived by him. The Bar Association of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry was also directed to conduct enquiry regarding any pending complaint against the advocate. Noting the seiourness of the case, the court remarked:

This is indeed a case requiring registration of a criminal case and appropriate action needs to be taken against persons, who are involved in the fabrication of documents. Cases in the nature of job racketing and creation of false documents have been mushrooming now-a-days and such persons involved in the offences should be crushed with iron hands and they shall not be allowed to go scot-free. The conduct of the 4th respondent also amounts to interference in the administration of justice

The court was dealing with a habeas corpus petitioner wherein a mother was sought for the production of her 17-year-old adopted son who was illegally detained by the third and fourth respondents. The third respondent claimed herself to be the stepsister of the detenue and she was helped by the fourth respondent who claimed himself to be an advocate.

As the petitioner had alleged that the fourth respondent was faking being an advocate, the court sought a response from him. He produced Degree certificate, alleged to be issued by the Bharathidasan University which according to the court, even if perused by a naked eye would be established as a fake one. In the Tamil Version of the certificate it showed that the respondent had studied "History" and secured "First Class" in Law and to the contrary, in the English language, it has been ascribed as if the 4th Respondent had secured "Second Class" in "Law". 

On suspicion, the court had directed the counsel appearing for the University to ascertain the genuineness of the Law certificate. To this, email communication from the Controller of Examination of the University was produced before the court stating that the certificate was not genuine and not issued by the university. 

However, the respondent comtinued to contend that he had studied and completed Law in Government Law College, Trichy and also produced Degree Certificate, claiming it to be original, along with a hand-written letter dated 28.07.2022 in the form of an affidavit addressed to the Registrar General of the High Court of Madras. 

The court noted that since the formation of Tamil Nadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University (TNDALU), no other university was empowered to issue degree ccertificate in Law. The claim of the respondent was therefore clearly false. Hence, the court was prima facie satisfied that the respondent had produced a fabricated degree certificate claiming himself to be a law graduate. 

Though the petitioner had also claimed that the respondent had claimed himself to be an advocate and had even showed an identity card issed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the counsel for the respondent contended that the respondent had only completed Law and had not enrolled as an Advocate before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The court however noted that presently it was concerned with the fabricated document produced by the respondent and the affidavit filed by him before the court.

The case has now been posted to 10th August 2022.