Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2013 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 588 - SC - Indian LawsInherent power of High Court - Whether the High Court while entertaining the petition under Section 482 of the Code has exceeded its jurisdiction. The powers under Section 482 are inherent which are to be exercised in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances - jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Cr.PC has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection - It has been held that at an initial stage a court should not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence or not – extraordinary or inherent powers did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice - the power being extraordinary has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional circumstances – court relied upon the judgement of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan (1988 (10) TMI 260 - SUPREME COURT). What amounts to conspiracy – difference between conspiracy and negligence - Professional misconduct - Whether the respondent was liable for abusing their official position as public servants and for having conspired with private individuals u/s 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 471 r.w. Section 109 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r.w. Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Held that:- He cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them Lawyer owes an “unremitting loyalty” to the interests of the client and it is the lawyer’s responsibility to act in a manner that would best advance the interest of the client - merely because his opinion may not be acceptable - he cannot be mulcted with the criminal prosecution – particularly - in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators – court followed the judgement of Pandurang Dattatraya Khandekar vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Ors. (1983 (10) TMI 225 - SUPREME COURT) - At the most he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence - the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud - there was no evidence to prove that respondent was abetting or aiding the original conspirators – decided against the CBI.
|