The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has stated a remarkable statement for the Advocates and Legal Practitioners while dismissing a revision petition under Section 311 of Cr P.C. The High Court observed that the lawyers owed a duty to the court and to the administration of justice. This revision is directed against the order with dated 17.03.2012, vide which the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application filled by the accused under Section 311 Cr P.C.
The Present petitioner along with 18 other persons is facing trial in F.I.R. No. 225 dated 19.09.2008 registered under Sections 376/511, 148, 323, 325, 307 amd 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC at Police Station, Sirsa. The submission made on the behalf of the petitioner was that the statement of the witness was recorded but proper opportunity of cross- examination was not afforded and thus, they may be summoned for further cross- examination.
Since, there was a contradiction in which the trial court has said the council for the petitioners was asked to place the zimni orders to show that their counsel was not present on the day the statement of the witness has been recorded. The Counsel had left to get the statements but on the after-noon when the matter was taken up again, it was stated that they could not get the zimni orders again.
The Counsel for the petititioner had submitted that the powers under Section 311 Cr P.C. are wide and if the permission is not accorded , it would result in failure of justice and some important questions were left to be put to the witnesses regarding the identity of the petitioner.
Dismissing the application, the Court noted that the petitioner to recall the witnesses was only an attempt to delay the trial as noted by the lower court. The Court also noted that the petitioner’s counsel had already cross examined the witness and his only attempt is to abuse the process of law by delaying the case
Justice Anita Chaudhary dismissing the application observed :-
“ 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 filled the petition and represented the petitioner till the last hearing had mislead the court. The legal practioners’s duty to promote his client’s interest must never be 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.”
This observation is regarded so much high because now a days legal practitioners has started seeing legal process as a business. So, this is a lesson to all of them that they also owe a duty towards the Court and Administration of Justice.