Delhi High Court
Abid Ahmed Sheikh vs State on 31 May, 2004
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. Criminal Misc. C. 1456/2004 was filed in this court with a prayer that the order dated 23.4.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- to permit further cross-examination of PW-3, SI Ranbir Singh, on account of misbehavior of the counsel, Mr. K.K. Manan, who did not appear in the court on behalf of the petitioner on account of outstanding professional fees, was bad.
2. Vide order dated 20.5.2004, this court took serious note of the observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 23.4.2004 which reads as follows :
''''All the accused persons are presently on bail except accused Mohd. Javed PW-3 SI Ranbir Singh is present for his cross-examination.
It is stated by Shri Arun Kumar, Advocate, for accused Mohd. Javed who is absent, that for accused Mohd. Javed ASI PW-3 Ranbir Singh has already been cross-examined and therefore the absence of the said accused is not mala fide for today. And, therefore, the exemption application for accused Mohd. Javed which is duly supported by the medical certificate is granted only for today.
Accused has made request for adjournment for cross-examination of PW-3 SI Ranbir Singh who is present in the court. The request for adjournment is opposed by the ASI on the ground that he was examined on 16.8.2001 and at the request of same accused i.e. Abid, his cross-examination was deferred and despite the expiry of about 2-1/2 years his cross-examination has not been completed. A perusal of record shows that despite cost imposed on the said accused, PW-3 ASI Ranbir who is present in the court could not be cross-examined for accused Abid.
Shri S. Kamar Proxy Counsel for Shri K.K. Manan, Advocate for accused Abid, has submitted that Shri K.K. Manan could not appear in this case because accused Abid has not paid him his professional charges and a sum of Rs.20,000/- is outstanding. The accused has refused for appointment of any amices curiae for him on the ground that he has already paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Shri K.K. Manan for his fees. To the best of my estimation non-payment for professional charges by the accused to his private counsel is no ground for adjournment especially when the accused refuses the offer of the court to provide him amices curiae at State expense. The conduct of the accused clearly shows that he is least concerned about inconvenience being caused to the PW and in ordinate delay being caused in disposal of this case. Request for adjournment is strongly opposed by PW-3 SI Ranbir Singh.
In view of the above discussion, to meet the ends of justice, I feel it proper to adjourn this case for 26.5.2004 for cross-examination of PW-3, SI Ranbir Singh, subject to deposit of the cost of Rs.10,000/- by accused Abid with Delhi Legal Aid Services Authority. Ordered accordingly. The said PW be summoned for the said date again. Cost shall be deposited by the accused on or before the next date.''
3. Notice was issued to Mr. K.K. Manan, Advocate, to show cause why his case be not placed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi. On 26.5.2004, Mr. Manan appeared in person and sought time to file an appropriate reply. The court, however, went on to set aside the cost imposed but continued with the matter for examination of Mr. Manan's reply. Reply was filed and the matter came up for hearing on 28.5.2004, when senior counsel, Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, sought time to study the matte. The matter was again taken up today when Mr. Manan, Advocate, appeared in person. He admits that there was a mistake on his part inasmuch as he should have sought permission to withdraw from the case when his client had taken back the brief from him.
He also tenders an unqualified apology for having caused delay in the proceedings before the trial court on account of his actions.
4. Having heard Mr. Manan, I am of the view that the petitioner, Mr. Abid Ahmad Sheikh, is not challenging the conduct of the counsel who has refused to represent him further even though a substantial amount has been received by him. I, therefore, see no reason to go into this aspect of the matter.
5. As regards withdrawing from the case without permission of the court concerned, since Mr. Manan has tendered an unqualified apology and has candidly admitted his mistake, his submissions before me appear to be genuine. While administering a warning to Mr. K.K. Manan, Advocate, to be careful in future, I drop further proceedings in the matter.
6. Criminal Misc. C. 1456 of 2004 and Crl.M.A. 4457 of 2004 stand disposed of.
