Skip to content


S.K. Mahboob S/O Abdul Kadar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision Application No. 411 of 1980
Judge
Reported in1982(2)BomCR23
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 188; Legal Practitioners Act, 1879 - Sections 36(4)
AppellantS.K. Mahboob S/O Abdul Kadar and ors.
RespondentState of Maharashtra and anr.
Appellant AdvocateD.Y. Lovekar, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.S. Choudhari, P.P.
Excerpt:
- - 2. both these witnesses have clearly stated in their deposition that the accused persons not only were present in the court premises, but they were actually persuading the litigants to engage a particular advocate......kanade, j.1. this revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the chief judicial magistrate, parbhani, dated april 3, 1980, convicting the petitioners under section 188 of the indian penal code read with section 36(4) of the legal practitioners act, 1879. by an order dated march 20, 1978, passed by the learned district and sessions judge, parbhani, ten persons including the petitioners were restrained from entering the precincts of the district court and other subordinate courts at parbhani, excepting for the work directly concerning themselves.2. six advocates practising at district court, parbhani, filed a complaint against five accused persons on june 28, 1979, under section 188 of the indian penal code read with section 36(4) of the legal.....
Judgment:

M.P. Kanade, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, dated April 3, 1980, convicting the petitioners under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 36(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. By an order dated March 20, 1978, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani, ten persons including the petitioners were restrained from entering the precincts of the District Court and other subordinate Courts at Parbhani, excepting for the work directly concerning themselves.

2. Six Advocates practising at District Court, Parbhani, filed a complaint against five accused persons on June 28, 1979, under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 36(4) of the Legal Practitioners Act, 1879. It is stated in the complaint that all the five accused persons were practising tourism and causing great nuisance in the legal profession by cheating the clients and litigant villagers by taking them to certain persons practising as Advocates and sometimes even extracting moneys from the ignorant litigants.

3. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Parbhani, filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, on June 30, 1979. The said complaint was tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani. After the trial the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his judgment and order dated April 3, 1980, convicted the five accused persons under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default of fine, to undergo one month's R.I. each. Against the said order of conviction and, sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Parbhani, the present revision has been filed only by the three accused.

4. Mr. D.Y. Lovekar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused urged that the order of conviction passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, is erroneous, inasmuch as the complainant has not proved any overt act. Mere presence in the Court premises of the accused persons is not enough to sustain the order of conviction under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted by Mr. Lovekar that the finding recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is perverse and the finding on the record does not warrant a conviction as recorded by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate.

5. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, submitted that a clear-cut finding has been recorded by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate and this being a revision application, Court should not reappreciate the evidence, and reverse that finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate.

6. Mr. Lovekar had taken me through the evidence adduced in support of the complaint. The two witnesses produced in support of the complaint are Ajaykumar Vaidya, Advocate, P.W. 1 and Ashok Soni, Advocate, P.W. 2. Both these witnesses have clearly stated in their deposition that the accused persons not only were present in the Court premises, but they were actually persuading the litigants to engage a particular Advocate. Ashok Soni P.W. 2 has further stated that he had seen the accused persons twice in the Court premises. On going through the evidence of these two witnesses, it cannot be said that the finding recorded by the learned trial Magistrate is perverse or not supported by the evidence on record. It is a serious charge which directly or indirectly interferes with the administration of justice. The persons who were indulging in illegal practice or acting as touts were prohibited by an order of the Court. They were directly by the learned District and Sessions Judge by order dated March 20, 1978, not to enter the precincts of the District Court and other subordinate courts at Parbhani, except for the work directly concerning themselves. The evidence produced in support of the complaint discloses that they had not been there in the Court premises or precincts for the work directly concerning themselves. If the evidence of the two Advocates referred to above is accepted, in my judgment, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate can be sustained under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Mr. Lovekar relied upon an authority reported in A.I.R. 1960 Assam page 20 Pradip Chowdhary v. The State. It is observed in the said judgment that mere disobedience is not an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Unless the consequence of the act of disobedience is proved, a person cannot be convicted under that section. It is true that mere presence in the Court premises would not constitute an offence under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it is found by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate that the accused were indulging in some activity within the Court premises contrary to the prohibitory order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge. The evidence on record justifies and warrants the order of conviction passed by the learned Chief Magistrate. I do not find any error of fact or law committed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, and, therefore, no interference is necessary.

8. In the result, rule is discharged and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, is confirmed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //