New trend of implicating advocates as accused along with clients should be deprecated: Madras High Court

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has deprecated and condemned the practice of implicating the advocates as accused along with their clients for offences alleged to have been committed by clients [P Velumani v State]..Justice K Murali Shankar made the observation while quashing criminal proceedings for the offences of trespass, criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint against the lawyer who was appearing for the accused in a case.“A new trend has been emerging in implicating the Advocates as accused along with their clients with ulterior motive of achieving the intended result quickly or immediately,” the Court observed in this regard..The single-judge emphasised that advocates are expected to be fearless and independent in the protection of rights of litigants, and it was their duty to press their clients’ cases strenuously and to the best of their abilities.“Advocates, in addition to being professionals, are also officers of the courts and play a vital role in the administration of justice. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional profession and it is not commercial in nature and is a noble profession considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society,” the Court stated..The allegation against the petitioner was that he was present in the house into which the accused allegedly broke in. The complainants had also recorded an instance where the petitioner had accompanied the Advocate Commissioner to the disputed property..However, the court rejected this argument stating that an advocate’s work was not only limited to courts, and they were expected to visit the property in dispute or the scene of occurrence to gather first-hand and direct information about the property in dispute or the occurrence scene.“Moreover it is their bounden duty to accompany the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the cases for inspecting the disputed property and for other purposes,” the Court said..Therefore, finding that there was no evidence to show that the petitioner broke open the lock of the disputed property, Justice Shankar opined that permitting the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.With this, the case against the petitioner was quashed..Advocate M Sheik Abdullah appeared for the petitioner while the respondents were represented by government advocate K Sanjai Gandhi..[Read Order]