Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of the Addition Sessions Judge, the Court said that it is duty of the lawyer to make a balance between client’s interest and administration of justice
The Petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (Power to summon material witness, or examine present person) to recall a witness in a rape case on the ground that the accused was not given an opportunity to take cross examination of three witnesses. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined and the power under Section 311 could not be used to harass a witness in a rape case.
In the Revision Petition, the Council was asked to place on record the questions he wanted to ask the witnesses. Repeated adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, but still he did not place the document before the Court. The State Council, Mr. S.K. Yadav, submitted that such an attempt by the Petitioner is only to delay the trial.
The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Petitioner has taken contrary stand in the lower Court and the High Court and has also given false reasons at different point of time during the trial. The bench comprising of Mrs Anita Chaudhry J., further observed that “The lawyer’s duty towards his client has to be balanced. They owe a duty to the Court and to the administration of justice. The lawyer who filed the petition and represented the petitioner till the last hearing had mislead the Court. The legal practitioner’s duty to promote his client’s interest must never transcend his duty to promote the interest of justice and truth. He also has a paramount duty towards the Court. His duty is to uphold the interest of justice and it should be of absolute condour.” [Harpreet v. State of Haryana, Crl. Rev. No.905 of 2012 (O&M), decided on 03.06.2016]
The Petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (Power to summon material witness, or examine present person) to recall a witness in a rape case on the ground that the accused was not given an opportunity to take cross examination of three witnesses. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined and the power under Section 311 could not be used to harass a witness in a rape case.
In the Revision Petition, the Council was asked to place on record the questions he wanted to ask the witnesses. Repeated adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, but still he did not place the document before the Court. The State Council, Mr. S.K. Yadav, submitted that such an attempt by the Petitioner is only to delay the trial.
The Court dismissed the application on the ground that the Petitioner has taken contrary stand in the lower Court and the High Court and has also given false reasons at different point of time during the trial. The bench comprising of Mrs Anita Chaudhry J., further observed that “The lawyer’s duty towards his client has to be balanced. They owe a duty to the Court and to the administration of justice. The lawyer who filed the petition and represented the petitioner till the last hearing had mislead the Court. The legal practitioner’s duty to promote his client’s interest must never transcend his duty to promote the interest of justice and truth. He also has a paramount duty towards the Court. His duty is to uphold the interest of justice and it should be of absolute condour.” [Harpreet v. State of Haryana, Crl. Rev. No.905 of 2012 (O&M), decided on 03.06.2016]
Comments
Post a Comment