Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J., denied bail to the advocate booked for allegedly misappropriating his client’s money and committing breach of trust being an attorney. The Bench stated,

“Despite repeated caution made to learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being an Advocate must come out with a fair stand even at this stage, there is no change of stand.”

The appellant was seeking to set aside the order of the Trial Court with regard to the offence under Sections 406, 420 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 467, 468, 471, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, by which the prayer of the appellant for his release on bail had been rejected.

The appellant, who was an Advocate, had filed a case in the Railway Claims Tribunal on behalf of one Lalan Pasi for compensation under Section 125 and Section 16 of the Railway Act. The Tribunal allowed claim and directed the State to grant Rs. 8 Lakhs with interest at the rate of 9% to the claimant. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs was to be transferred in the account of Smt. Sanjhariya Devi (mother of the deceased). Accordingly, a joint account was opened and a sum of Rs. 10,52,000/- was transferred to the said account.

The case of the prosecution was that the appellant, taking advantage of his position as an Advocate of the victims/claimants withdrew the whole amount from the joint account of Lalan Pasi which was awarded as compensation to Lalan Pasi and Sanjhariya Devi on account of the death of their only son Gorakh Pasi.

Contesting the bail appeal, the State submitted that the act of the appellant robbing his client, being an Advocate was highly condemnable and the allegation against him were serious in nature when considered from the point of view of the professional ethics of an Advocate and the duty cast upon him towards his client.

Observing that, despite repeated caution to return the entire amount to the claimant, the appellant was reluctant to do so and was only willing to return a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the Bench stated that the appellant being an Advocate must come out with a fair stand.

In the light of the above, the Bench held that since the appellant being an Advocate had allegedly committed a breach of trust and had misappropriated his client’s money and was not ready to return the money which belonged to his clients, his case was not fit for bail.[Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar, Cr. Appeal (Sj) No.3564 of 2021, decided on 27-10-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance:
For the Appellant/s: Mr.Ajit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Ms. Usha Kumari – 1, Special P.P.

Law School NewsLSAT IndiaMoot Court Announcements

Law schools organize Moot Competitions to train law students in reasoning, argument, and legal analysis. These competitions teach students to explore both sides of an argument, learn to present their conclusions coherently and improve their written and oral communication.

LSAC Global is providing this opportunity to law aspirants through the 2nd Moot Court Competition for Law Aspirants on 5th and 6th February 2022. This competition aims to provide a challenging and yet fun experience of the courtroom to law aspirants to help them develop their analytical, critical reasoning and advocacy skills without the need to have legal knowledge or any legal training. An interactive event that will provide an opportunity for participants to learn about the legal system and what it is like to be a lawyer.

The participants will be analyzing the factual matrix of the situation provided and arguing on the same.

 

Eligibility

The competition is open to all school students currently in grade 11, 12 or who are yet to be enrolled into a law school.

 

Objectives

LSAC Global is conducting this competition with the objective of improving communication skills, critical thinking skills and problem-solving abilities of law aspirants. This will help in exposing high school students to the nuances of court system in India and provide real-life experience and training in presenting relevant oral and written arguments.

Registrations

Interested students can register for the event till 25th January 2022. All participants will be required to submit a Memorial on 31st January 2022 after due training is provided to them. Preliminary rounds will be conducted on 5th February 2022 for the shortlisted students and the winners of each preliminary round will qualify for the final round on 6th  February 2022. There is no registration fee for participating in this competition.

Prize

All participants who will register, successfully submit the memorials on the due date and appear for the oral rounds on the event date will be awarded a Certificate of Participation

The winners in the rounds will receive a Certificate of Merit and a medal under each of the following categories:

  • Winner
  • Runners-up
  • Best Written Argument and Memorial
  • Best Speaker

Important Dates

Registration for Moot Competition 7th October – 25th  January 2022
Mentoring/ Training Session 27th January – 29th January 2022
Memorial Submission 31st January 2022
Allotment of Sides 02nd February 2022
Preliminary Round 05th February 2022
Final Round 06th February 2022

 

Important Links

Moot Problem

2nd LSAC-DLI-Moot-Court-Brochure

Contact Details

For more details, please visit our website.

To register for the 2nd DLI Moot Court competition click Here.

In case you have any queries, write to discoverlawindia@lsac.org.

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa: This appeal was filed before a 5-Judge Bench comprising of Zondi, JA.; Navsa ADP., Mbha, Molemela and Makgoka, JJA., against the order of High Court where appellants application for removal of respondent’s name from the roll of advocates was rejected.

Respondent was alleged with serious allegation of misconduct. Appellant had filed an application in the High Court under Section 22(1)(d) of the Attorney’s Act, 1979 which states that any person who is found not  fit and proper person to continue to practice as an attorney can be removed from the roll of attorneys and thus appellant was seeking an order to remove respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys. High Court rejected the aforementioned application. Against this rejection of the application, this appeal was filed.

Supreme Court observed that the investigation with respect to the conduct of respondent was not complete. As an interim measure respondent was suspended from practicing as an attorney unless disciplinary enquiry concerning his professional conduct is completed.

Therefore, the order of the High Court was set aside. [Law Society of the Northern Provinces v.  Pule Abram Morobadi, Case No. 1151 of 2017, decided on 11-12-2018]