The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) recently observed that lawyers should discourage their clients from raising baseless allegations against judicial officers and lawyers should not incorporate such allegations in pleadings.
This observation was made when the Court was hearing a revision petition, wherein the petitioner stated that he was not given sufficient time to argue his case in physical mode.
In the instant case, the petitioner was booked for offences u/s 7,12 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and was facing trial.
The petitioner alleged that the Trial Court dismissed his application u/s 91 of CrPC without hearing his arguments and the impugned order should be set aside.
Petitioner’s Counsel clarified that he was not blaming the Trial Court judge.
The Court stated that the Counsel’s act of withdrawing the allegation was appreciable, but since the said ground was taken up in the original petition, the Court has to deal with it.
Observations of the Court
Hon’ble Court observed that due to the pandemic, the entire country was working virtually. The petitioner’s statement that he could not argue his case elaborately was against the Supreme Court orders.
The Court further observed that Section 91 does not give an absolute right to accused to summon any documents. If the Court is satisfied that the summoning of documents was necessary, it can issue orders.
The Bench held that there was no infirmity in the Trial Court order, and the instant revision was filed by the petitioner to protract and prolong the proceedings. The Court proceeded to dismiss the petition.