K.I. Favunny Vs. The Asstt. Collector , Cochin
EmailAppeal: Crl. M.P. Nos. 4620-21 of 1997
In
Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1988
In
Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1988
Petitioner: K.I. Favunny
Respondent: The Asstt. Collector , Cochin
Apeal: Crl. M.P. Nos. 4620-21 of 1997
In
Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1988
In
Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1988
Judges: S. SAGHIR AHMAD , G.B. PATTANAIK & M. JAGANNADHA RAO , JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 24, 1998
Head Note:
REMARKS AGAINST ADVOCATE
Petitioner , a practising advocate , elevated to Bench and retired in July 1992 – During hearing of Criminal Appeal of 1988 , certain remarks made against his competence as counsel – No opportunity given to him to explain his conduct before the remarks made – Ordered that the remarks made against him personally in judgement Dt. 3-2-1997 , shall be treated to have been deleted .
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . The applicant was a practising advocate at Allahabad mainly on the taxation side and was elevated as Judge of the Allahabad High Court . He retired in July , 1992 and has since been enrolled as Senior Advocate in this Court .
2 . While deciding Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1998 some remarks came to be made against his competence as counsel . These applica-tion have been given by him that those remarks may be deleted as he was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct before those remarks were made . It is pointed out by him in his applica-tions as under :
” That as already stated that since the brief of the applicant consisted only of a copy of the High Court judgement and no other papers were there and judgement was reserved and remarks against the applicant were ultimately made in the judgement dated 3rd February , 1997 . The applicant did not get any oppor-tunity to place the handicapped while arguing the case.
3 . Having heard the learned counsel who is appearing in person and having perused the judgement , we allow the applications . Remarks made against the applicant personally in the judgement delivered by this Court on February 3 , 1997 shall be treated to have been deleted .
1 . The applicant was a practising advocate at Allahabad mainly on the taxation side and was elevated as Judge of the Allahabad High Court . He retired in July , 1992 and has since been enrolled as Senior Advocate in this Court .
2 . While deciding Criminal Appeal No. 543 of 1998 some remarks came to be made against his competence as counsel . These applica-tion have been given by him that those remarks may be deleted as he was not given an opportunity to explain his conduct before those remarks were made . It is pointed out by him in his applica-tions as under :
” That as already stated that since the brief of the applicant consisted only of a copy of the High Court judgement and no other papers were there and judgement was reserved and remarks against the applicant were ultimately made in the judgement dated 3rd February , 1997 . The applicant did not get any oppor-tunity to place the handicapped while arguing the case.
3 . Having heard the learned counsel who is appearing in person and having perused the judgement , we allow the applications . Remarks made against the applicant personally in the judgement delivered by this Court on February 3 , 1997 shall be treated to have been deleted .
