The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) has refused to quash a corruption case against an advocate accused of persuading his client to pay a bribe to police officers, holding that the legal profession carries a high ethical responsibility and cannot be used to exploit clients.
In a
detailed order delivered last week, justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke says, "...role of a lawyer in the society is basically to help an individual to find the best way to redress a dispute or prevent one from occurring and not to loot their money. There should be a feeling in the mindset of clients that consulting a lawyer promptly should help them avoid a wide range of problems and reduce financial losses and not otherwise, as is prevalent as of date."
"Legal profession is a service-oriented profession. It should always be remembered that, a lawyer is a representative of clients or a neutral third party, an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice. Though, it is difficult for a lawyer to protect the interests of their clients in toto, independence is the key for providing unbiased advice and representation to a client. Lawyers must also maintain the highest standards of honesty, integrity and fairness towards clients, Court, other lawyers and members of the public, including fulfillment of any undertaking given in the course of their practice," the bench observed in its order.
The HC then dismissed a criminal application filed by advocate Sachin Chandramani Wankhede seeking the quashing of a first information report (FIR) registered by the anti-corruption bureau (ACB) in Akola under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The case arises from crime no29/2018 registered at Murtizapur police station in Akola district following a complaint lodged by ACB officer Ishwar Chauhan.
According to the complaint, the father of an accused in a rape case approached the ACB alleging that police officers demanded a bribe through advocate Wankhede to provide 'better facilities' to his son while in custody.
Investigators alleged that the demand was initially around ₹5 lakh but was later negotiated to ₹1.25 lakh.
Based on the complaint, ACB conducted a verification exercise in the presence of panch witnesses, during which conversations between the complainant and the advocate were recorded. The probe later included the collection and analysis of the advocate’s voice samples.
The Court noted that forensic analysis confirmed that the voice in the recorded conversations matched the applicant's voice sample.
The investigation subsequently resulted in the filing of a charge sheet before the special court in Akola.
The advocate had approached the HC seeking the quashing of the FIR primarily on two grounds. First, he argued that a compromise had been reached between him and the complainant, who had filed an affidavit stating that the complaint was made due to a misunderstanding. Second, the advocate contended that the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act were wrongly invoked, as he was not a public servant.
However, the HC rejected the plea, observing that offences under special statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed merely because the parties have reached a settlement.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that corruption cases have wider public implications and therefore cannot be treated as private disputes.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s observations on corruption as a serious societal problem that undermines public trust and must be dealt with strictly.
Justice Joshi-Phalke examined the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the concept of abetment under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.
While the Court acknowledged that the advocate is not a public servant and, therefore, offences under certain provisions of the corruption law may not apply directly, it held that the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of abetment.
The Court observed that the communications between the advocate and the complainant indicated that the advocate attempted to persuade the complainant to arrange the bribe demanded by the police officers.
“In order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime,” the Court says, adding that the material collected during the investigation suggested such involvement.
The bench concluded that the allegations are sufficient to proceed against the advocate under provisions relating to abetment of corruption.
The judgement also contains strong observations on the duties and ethical responsibilities of lawyers.
Referring to the bar council of India (BCI) rules governing professional conduct, the Court says advocates are officers of the Court and privileged members of the community who must maintain the highest standards of honesty and fairness.
“In the light of the duties cast upon lawyers who are in the noble legal profession, utmost integrity and loyalty are expected,” the Court says, adding that the alleged conduct in the present case was inconsistent with these principles.
After analysing the facts and legal provisions, the HC concluded that the case disclosed sufficient material to proceed with the prosecution.
It held that corruption cases require strict scrutiny and that constitutional courts must show zero tolerance towards such offences.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the advocate’s plea to quash the FIR and allowed the criminal proceedings pending before the special court in Akola to continue.
