The Allahabad High Court has issued notices to two advocates seeking explanation as to why they have filed two orders of the same date in the same case.
A single-judge bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc anticipatory bail application filed by Sandeep Kumar Vishnoi and 3 Others.
The applicants had filed their second anticipatory bail application in case under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 39-D Adhar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 and 66-C of I.T Act, Police Station Sardhana, District Meerut.
The Court noted, on 17.1.2023, AGA pointed out that there is some different order in his records of the same date passed in the first anticipatory bail application of the applicants. On January 20, the case was listed along with the true certified copy of first anticipatory bail application of the applicants, wherein the order dated 02.11.2020 finds appended.
The Court observed that, perusal of both the orders, quoted reveals different contents though the details mentioned in ‘cause title’ and ‘order date’ are same.
This obfuscating of facts is necessitated to be scrutinized. Again no one is present on behalf of the applicants even in revised calls.
The Court said, “Daring or it may be called in literal words the ‘insincere’ act of an Advocate does not allow my consciousness to eschew it in such a bizarre situation where the concerned responsible person is trying to hide by adopting the practice of absenteeism.”
Courts always have respect and faith over, even any vocal statement advanced by a lawyer at Bar and hardly express disbelief over it. However, the case is filled with a sufficiency of unreliability to run over such an impression, which may, in future, be detrimental to such an admiring relationship between the Bench and Bar.
To imbibe the ideas and suggestions of luminaries of the Bar over such a spectrum where Advocates are required to be guided with ethics and moral obligations in respect of professionalism to safeguard the traditional belief.
“Let notices be issued to Aditya Prasad Mishra and Pradeep Kumar Pandey, Advocates, to explain under what impression a different order has been placed on record and why the proceedings be not asked to be initiated by the UP Bar Council. The applicants shall also file their personal affidavits separately as to why prosecution for perjury be not proposed against them.
The President and the Secretary of Allahabad High Court Bar Association, Allahabad are requested to look into the conduct of both above named advocates in the matter, and render their assistance to the Court, on the next date fixed, regarding the course of action which they think fit to suggest for. The Registrar General of the Court shall ensure that all concerned be informed about the order,” the order reads.
The Court has fixed the next hearing of the petition on February 7, 2023.