POLITICAL INTERFERENCE IN LEGAL PROFESSION:
My Grievance with reference to the following case decided by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, in S. INDIA:
C.C. No. 43/1995 : Crime No. 277 / 1994( Case disposed of in the year 2007 by the J.M Court of Nilakkottai of Dindigul District in the State of Tamilnadu in South INDIA).
(i). Date of Complaint and number of accused:
Complaint was lodged against 23 accused on 08.07.1994 and charge-sheet was filed in the year 1995 showing all the accused in absconding column after the investigation.
(ii). A-1 being politically influential person:
A-1 being politically influential person for more than 15 years in that area, have been enjoying great support from the Police Officers except a short period when he was arrested by the Police on 20.10.2003 in execution of an arrest warrant pending against him since the year 1995.
(iii).Accused and prosecution witness being the same person:
A-5 who is the brother of A-1 was made to be the prosecution witness No.4 in the very same case as per the final report of the Investigating Officer.
(iv).When an accused himself be made to be the prosecution witness in the very same case wherein he and his relatives are still undergoing the trial as accused, is it not the best defence available to the persons accused in that case?(Note : A-5 in C.C. No. 43/1995 who had been made as the prosecution witness as per the final report filed by the Investigating Officer in the very same case, has also been made so in another case, viz. C.C. No. 63/2009 : Crime No.: 658/2007. It shows the conduct of the Investigating Officers to support the offenders whenever A-1 in C.C. No. 43/1995 and his henchmen are the accused in any criminal case registered in the Baltagundu Police Station for more than atleast 15 years.)
(v).Delay in disposal of the case:
Criminal case registered in the year 1994 was disposed of only in the year 2007 when A-3 who is the son of main accused therein (A-1) had decided to take up a job with the Secretariat of Government of Tamilnadu. Delay in disposal of the case was reportedly due to abscondance of all the accused especially the A-3 against whom the warrant of arrest remained unexecuted for more than 12 years. (Note : A-3 is reportedly working in the Secretariat of the Government of Tamil Nadu at present and claims himself to be the right hand of a powerful Minister in the Government of Tamilnadu.)
(vi).Political interference in legal profession:
A-3 who had approached me in the month of December, 2006, informed me that one of the Minister of the Government of Tamilnadu (name omitted by me) had instructed me simply to move an application for cancellation of arrest warrant issued against A-3 in CC. No. 43/1995 in the year 1995 and also to appear on their behalf to conduct the criminal case as well. However, I refused to move such an application under S. 70 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code because similar application (criminal Miscellaneous petition No. 6399/ 2003 in C.C. No. 43/95) moved on behalf of one of the co-accused who is aged in the very same case had been dismissed by a detailed order of the Hon’ble J.M. Court of Nilakkottai on 22.12.2003 itself.(Note : I was least interested in confirming as to whether the Minister himself had actually instructed me or his name was misused by the persons accused in C.C. No. 43/1995 as they usually do in number of matters.)
(vii).I also did not pay heed to the foul requests of A-3, (1) just to move an application for cancellation of arrest warrant and the rest of the things required for cancellation of the arrest warrant had allegedly been done by him through the Minister and (2) that I should appear on their behalf for conducting the case just for the name sake as they were sure of acquittal from the case.
(viii).Discretion of J.M Court:
I learnt thereafter that J.M. Court by exercising its discretion, decided in the year 2007 to cancel the arrest warrant issued by it against A-3, 12 years ago, even though it had rejected similar application filed on behalf of an aged accused in the very same case under the different circumstances on 22.12.2003.
(ix).I also learnt that all the accused were acquitted from the criminal case in the year 2007 based on the material available on record.
(x).I also turned down the request of the accused in C.C. No. 43/95 to file a private complaint of malicious prosecution against the defacto complainant of the very same case and similar other requests, because parties of the both sides are my co-villagers.
(xi).Syndicate of offenders:
Accused in C.C. No. 43/95 and their relatives have formed a syndicate to face any criminal case registered against any one of them, collectively by rendering political and financial assistance to each other and also by use of their muscle powers.
(xii).Rejection of foul requests, motive for offenders:
Since I have turned down the selfish and foul requests of the above syndicate, the members of the syndicate have been harbouring a grudge against me and determined to cause damage to my reputation and thereby to my profession of law. Some of the Police officers and politicians are also supporting this syndicate on basis of their unlawful understanding between each other.
PRECEDENT
Discretion of an Authority:
“The authority cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the direction of others as this would amount to abdication and surrender of its discretion. It would then not be the Authority’s discretion that is exercised, but some one else’s. If an authority “hands over its discretion to another body, it acts ultravires”, such an interference by a person or body extraneous to the power would plainly be contrary to the nature of the power conferred upon the authority”. A.I.R. 1989 SC 997.
