Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Revision No. 1281 of 2016
Ganesh Prasad --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Ashok Kumar Singh --- --- Opp. Parties
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Binod Kr. Jha, Advocate
For the O.P.-State: Ms. Mahua Palit, A.P.P
For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
---
09 / 09.10.2023 Petitioner has filed this application against the judgment dated
11.08.2016, passed by Shri Dhananjay Kumar, District and Additional Sessions
Judge-XVI, Dhanbad in Criminal Appeal No. 81/2016, whereby and wherein,
the learned Additional Sessions Judge-XVI, Dhanbad dismissed the appeal of
petitioner and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
31.03.2016, passed by Shri Anup Tirkey, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Dhanbad in C.P. Case No. 499/2005, holding the petitioner guilty for the
offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and thereby sentencing him to undergo
S.I for six months. Petitioner was also directed to compensate the opposite
party no. 2 by paying Rs. 35,000/-.
2. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of complaint petition filed
by the opposite party no. 2 who is the practicing lawyer in Dhanbad, alleging
therein that the son of the petitioner Rishikant Prasad had suffered grievous
injury in a motor vehicular accident. Petitioner had filed an application under
section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation for the grievous
injury caused to his minor son. Opposite party no. 2 had appeared on behalf of
the petitioner. It appears that the there was an agreement between the petitioner
and the opposite party no. 2 to the effect that the opposite party no. 2 will bear
cost of litigation and the petitioner will pay all the legal expenses in lump-sum
to the opposite party no. 2. It further appears that the claim case was disposed
of and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal ordered for payment of
compensation of Rs. 1,87,759/- to the son of the petitioner. Under the aforesaid
agreement, petitioner issued cheque in favour of the opposite party no. 2 for a
sum of Rs. 24,750/- towards payment of legal expense and remuneration. When
this cheque was placed for encashment, it bounced.
3. Rule 11 of Bar Council on India Rules on professional conduct of an
Advocate's duty towards Client provides that:-
"An Advocate should not trade or agree to receive any
share or interest in any actionable claim."
4. It is against legal ethics for a lawyer in Indian legal system to enter into
an agreement with the claimant seeking compensation in Motor Vehicle Act to
share portion of award by undertaking to bear the cost of the litigation.
5. As legal ethics bars a lawyer from sharing the portion of compensation
amount awarded in a case of motor vehicle accident filed under section 166 of
Motor Vehicle Act,, the cheque of Rs. 24,759/- issued by the petitioner to the
complainant, cannot be said to have been issued against the discharge of legally
enforceable debt. No case under section 138 N.I. Act is made out.
6. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.03.2016,
passed by the learned Trial Court, so affirmed by the learned Appellate Court,
is hereby set aside.
7. This revision application is allowed. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed
of.
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Ranjeet/
Uploaded
