Orissa High Court Rejects Request to Dismiss Case Against Lawyer Accused of Asking for Bribe from Client to Influence Judge.
The Orissa High Court has rejected a petition from an Advocate accused of soliciting a bribe from a client to sway a judge in a bail case. The Court has also instructed the Bar Council of Orissa to investigate these claims and carry out the necessary disciplinary actions. The Advocate had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to dismiss the F.I.R. against him, which is currently in the J.M.F.C. (City), Cuttack. Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, in a Single-Judge Bench, stated that advocates are expected to maintain a high standard of professional integrity when dealing with clients seeking justice.
The informant, the wife of a person involved in a case under the OPID Act, had previously sought bail from this Court. The F.I.R. claims that she paid Rs.16,35,000 through an intermediary as instructed by the Advocate. It is further alleged that she provided him with a gold chain weighing 65 grams and a gold bracelet weighing 50 grams for the marriage of the Judge’s daughter, who was to hear her husband’s bail case. Additionally, the Advocate reportedly requested original title deeds and land records to help secure bail. After the bail request was denied, he allegedly demanded another Rs.16 lakh to submit a new bail application. When the informant asked for the return of their case file and original documents, the Advocate refused and threatened that her husband would never receive bail due to his connections.
The informant traveled to Cuttack in a last effort to recover money, original documents, mobile phones, gold jewelry, and case files.
The Bench emphasized that the advocate holds the trust of the court and serves as a representative of the law in society. They stated, “Thus, such behavior is inappropriate for an advocate.” The case suggested that the Petitioner had made unfounded accusations against a former judge. According to the Bench, it is hard to believe that an ordinary litigant would fabricate such serious claims against a high-ranking official. “Certainly, the full truth can only be revealed through a thorough investigation, but at this point, it is clear that due to the serious allegations affecting the integrity of the judicial system, this case requires a comprehensive and unbiased inquiry to uncover the facts,” they added.
Regarding professional and other misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, the Bench referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Dabholkar and others (1975) 2 SCC 702, as well as Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar Vs. Bar, stating, “An advocate has responsibilities to both the client and the court. Courts have responded firmly to cases where an advocate has breached the trust of the client.” Additionally, there were claims against the Petitioner for acting without permission by using blank papers signed by the informant’s husband, which also constitutes professional misconduct.
The court reviewed the legal decisions and the Advocates Act and stated, “Given the situation in this case, strong action is necessary to uphold the trust of the litigants and society as a whole. The provisions in Chapter-V of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975, outline how to handle cases of professional misconduct by advocates.” Referring back to the case details, the court instructed the Bar Council of Orissa to investigate the claims and conduct Disciplinary Proceedings, ensuring that everyone involved has a chance to participate. Since the informant provided detailed information about the demands made during the time the case was before this Court, the court concluded, “Thus, this petition has no merit. Therefore, the CRLMC is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000.”
Cause Title: Sambit Samal vs State of Odisha [Case No. CRLMC No.2078 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Surya Narayan Biswal
Respondent: Additional Standing Counsel Sangram Keshari Mishra
