Jharkhand High Court
Md. Sahabuddin Baig vs The Union Of India Through C.B.I./ ... on 13 May, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.469 of 2019
------
Md. Sahabuddin Baig .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I./ SPE, Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondent
With
------
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.284 of 2019
------
Ramanand Ram @ Ramannand Ram .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. .... .... .... Respondent
With
------
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.364 of 2019
------
Smt. Shobha Sinha .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. .... .... .... Respondent
With
------
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.444 of 2019
------
Md. Ilyas Hussain @ Md. Illiyas Hussain
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation
.... .... .... Respondent
With
------
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.457 of 2019
------
Kedar Paswan .... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through CBI/ SPE/Ranchi
.... .... .... Respondent
With
------
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.458 of 2019
------
Dhudheshwar Nath Singh @ Dudheshwar Nath Singh
.... .... .... Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through C.B.I. .... .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Samir Malik, Advocate (In
Cr.Appeal (SJ) No.469 of 2019)
For the C.B.I. : None
------
Order No.11 Dated- 13.05.2021
I.A. Nos.1691 of 2021, 2353 of 2021 and 8963 of 2019 in Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.469 of 2019
I.A. No.3670 of 2020 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.284 of 2019
I.A. Nos.4795 of 2020 and 7665 of 2019 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.444 of 2019
I.A. No.10586 of 2019 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.457 of 2019
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner of Cr.
Appeal (SJ) No.469 of 2019 and the Interlocutory Applications
arising out of that appeal as mentioned above through video
conferencing.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No. 284 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 364 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
444 of 2019, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 457 of 2019 or Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.
458 of 2019. Similarly no one turns up for the common respondent of
these appeals namely the Union of India represented by the Central
Bureau of Investigation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.469 of
2019 submits that he is not ready for hearing of Cr. Appeal (SJ)
No.469 of 2019 on merits today and he is only ready for hearing of
the three interlocutory applications i.e. I.A. Nos.1691 of 2021, 2353 of
2021 and 8963 of 2019 in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.469 of 2019 relating to
suspension of execution of sentence of the appellant-convict.
4. It is pertinent to mention here that the apparent reason for
non-appearance of the learned counsels for the appellants of the
connected appeals arising out of the same impugned judgment and
for that matter the common respondent of all these appeals is the
resolution passed by the Jharkhand State Bar Council as is evident
from a communication received by the Registrar General of this
Court from the Jharkhand State Bar Council to the effect that the
Advocates of Jharkhand have been restrained by the Jharkhand State
Bar Council from appearing in any proceedings of this Court as well
as other Courts and Tribunals, both physically and virtually, in view
of the Covid-19 Pandemic till 16.05.2021.
5. Mr. Samir Malik, the learned counsel for the appellant-
petitioner of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.469 of 2019 appearing before this
court today is not enrolled with the Jharkhand State Bar Council
which has passed the resolution for all Advocates of Jharkhand
abstaining from the proceedings of the Court till 16.05.2021 and
obviously not bound by the said resolutions passed by the
Jharkhand State Bar Council which has also resolved, as is evident
from its communication under Reference No.1165-1201/2021 dated
18.04.2021 that any deviation or non-compliance of the said
resolution of the Jharkhand State Bar Council restraining all the
Advocates of the State of Jharkhand completely including their
support staffs who work upon their respective direction from all
Court works, whether physically or online and whether at the High
Court or other Courts and Tribunals will make the concerned
Advocate liable to be treated as misconduct.
6. It is needless to mention that the following issues
"(i) Whether the State Bar Council has the competence and
authority to restrain all the Advocates enrolled with it and their
support staff from appearing before the Courts and tribunals
continuously for about a month?
(ii) Whether mere appearance by an Advocate who is an officer of
the Court before a court of law can be termed as misconduct?
(iii) Whether the State Bar Council has the competence and
authority to pass any resolution regarding the conduct of advocates'
clerks by couching the resolution with the words 'support staff of
the advocates'; the license of whom is issued by the registry of this
court for the clerks of the advocates practising before this Court and
in case of district courts the concerned Principal District Judge?"
are probably the grey areas having not been decided by any judicial
forum, which needs to be addressed in the interest of proper and
smooth functioning of this court as well as to prevent the access of
justice being denied to the litigants for all practical purposes, if the
resolution of the Jharkhand State Bar Council restraining all the
Advocates of the State of Jharkhand as well as their support staff
from appearing in court continues for an indefinite period.
7. Be that as it may, but the thing is that when the threat of
'misconduct' by none other than the Jharkhand State Bar Council
which has been vested with the power by the statute to suspend the
license of all Advocates enrolled with it, hangs as Damocles' sword
over the head of an Advocate, it is highly unlikely that any prudent
Advocate will take the risk of appearing before the Court. So, this
Court is of the considered view that the service of the copy of the
Interlocutory Application by sending a copy of the same by email to
the concerned Advocate, who is handicapped by the said resolution
of the Jharkhand State Bar Council, under the circumstances as
discussed above, cannot be treated as a valid service of the copy of
the petition upon the respondent-opposite party.
8. Under such circumstances, it will not be fair to take up these
matters in the absence of any body appearing for the appellants of
the connected appeals as well as the common respondent-opposite
party of all these appeals.
9. If the Jharkhand State Bar Council does not make any further
extension of the said resolution restraining all the Advocates of the
State of Jharkhand and their support staffs as already indicated
above, the legality of which resolution is yet to be tested, then the
appellant-petitioner will be at liberty to move before this Court as
and when such a resolution of the Jharkhand State Bar Council
comes to an end for hearing of the matters.
10. In alternative, the appellant-petitioner is directed to supply
copy of these Interlocutory Applications along with a copy of this
order directly to the concerned officer of the common respondent of
all these appeals namely Central Bureau of Investigation within a
week from this order and the Central Bureau of Investigation may
authorize any of its officer and intimate the same to the Court
Master of this Court or the Central Bureau of Investigation may
engage any lawyer, if willing to appear in the case may be from
outside the State of Jharkhand on the next day of listing of this case.
11. List these appeals after three weeks.
AFR-Animesh/ (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
