BHATARAJU NAGESHWARA RAO versus THE HONBLE JUDGES OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1055 · Decided: 03-12-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA, SUDHI RANJAN DAS, VIVIAN BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1055 
superior 
Courts of orders passed by the 
Courts. 
In such 
circumstances, 
there is 
ground for · apprehending any 
capnc1ous 
tion by judicial tribunals. 
Subordinate 
hardly 
any 
discrimina-
On the facts and circumstances of this case we find 
<>Urselves in agreement with S. K. Das, J., and Reuben, 
C.J., and hold that no case of infringement of funda-
mental right under Article 14 has been made out. 
In 
the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal. . 
Appeal dismissed. 
BHATARAJU NAGESHWARA RAO 
fl. 
1 
THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE MADRAS 
HIGH COURT AND OTHERS. 
[MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs and VIVIAN BosE JJ.] 
Procedu·re-Supreme Court-Suspension of Advocate by High 
Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Respondents to be impleaded in 
such appeal-Indian Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926), s. 12. 
y 
It is wrong and inappropriate to implead the Judges of the High 
"" Court as respondents in an appeal preferred to the Supreme Court by 
an Advocate against whom .an order of suspension was passed by the 
High Court under s. 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. In 
such appeal the proper respondents are the complainant if any, the 
Bar Council or Secretary thereof and the Advocate-General of the 
State concerned. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 146 of 1954. 
·-+ 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment 
and 
.. 
Order dated the 17th day of 
December, 1952, 
of 
the 
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Referred 
Case 
No. 45 of 1952 arising out 
of the 
Report dated 
the 
27th day of March, .1951, of the 
Court 
of 
District 
Judge, Krishna in C.M.P; No. 123 of 1951. 
S. P. Sinha, 
(K. R. Chaudhary and Sardar 
Baha-
dur, with him), for the appellant . 
.,.:; 
R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, for 
respon-
dent No. L 
1954 
Budhan GhOudhry 
and Others 
v·. 
TheSta~'oj 
Bihar 
Das]. 
1954 
Dectmber 3 
'.954 
, ·Bhataraju 
N ageshwara Rao 
v. 
The· !/qn'bleJudgts 
of t!M Madras 
High. Court and 
Qtlurs 
Das J. 
1056 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[.1955] 
T. Satyanarayana and P. G. 
Gokhale, for 
re'spon· 
dent No. 3 •. 
1954.' December 3. The 
Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
DAs J.'-This is an appeal by special \eave frorri an 
order made by a Special Bench of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madras 
under section 12 of ·the 
Indian 
Bar Councils 
Act· (Act XXXVIII of 1926) debarring 
the appellant from 
practising as 
ah advocate for 
a. 
period of ·five years. 
The material facts are these. 
T~~ appellant before 
us is an advocate ordinarily · practismg 
at 
Masauli-
patam. 
In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1949 on the file of 
the 
Additional 
First 
Class 
Magistrate's 
Cqurt 
at 
Masaiilipatam nin'e · persons · were :charged · with 
the 
offence of cortveying rice from the 
village 
to 
other 
villages without permits. 
Accused .Nos. 2 and 
4 were 
not represented by any · advocate. 
Accused Nos. 
1, 3, 
5, 6 and 8, all cart-men, were defended by .. the. appel-
lant. 
Accused 
No.· 7, 
who initiated the 
proceedings: 
out of which ·the present appeal 
arises 
and 
who is; 
hereinafter referred 
to 
as "the petitioner", 
was de-
fended· by · another ad vacate. 
The 
case 
was disposed' 
•of on the 30th September, · 1949. 
Accused 
Nos. 1, 3, 
5 and 6 were acquitted. 
Accused No. 2 was convicted· 
and sentenced to a fine of 
Rs. 20 and 
m 
default of 
payment of fine to undergo simple 
imprisonment for 
one month. 
Accused No. 4 and the petitioner, accused'. 
No. 7; were also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine 
of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of firie to-
undergo simple imprisoll1I)ent for six months. · Accused 
No. 8 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. and in 
default of payment of the fine, to 
simple' imprison-· 
rnent for three months.· Accused No. 2 paid . the 
fine· 
but the other three 
convicted 
persons . did ·not. 
The 
four convicted persons including the petitioner 
there-. 
after .engaged the appellant to prefer an appeal to the 
Sessions ·Court. ·The appeal was presented 
before the 
Sessions Court on the 8th October, 1949 and. on the 
same-day a. petition was filed on .. behalf 
of'. accused 
Nos. 4, 7 (petitioner) and 8 for an order staying 
the, 
• 
I 
• 
-
-
---.' 
' ' 
-+ .. 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1057 
.realisation of the . fine. . , That application . for . stay 
came up. before the learned Sessions Judge· on· the 10th. 
October, 1949 when .notice was directed . , to· : issue . ta 
the Public · Prose~utor. On, the. 11

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.