LexNILGIRIS BAR ASSOCIATION versus T.K. MAHALINGAM AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B NILGIRIS BAR ASSOCIATION v. T.K. MAHALINGAM AND ANR. DECEMBER 8, 1997 [M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) Probation of Offenders Act, 1958-Sectioll 4( 1 )-Relief to be given 011ly ill approp1iate cases and subject to the condition a11d restrictions provided there1111de1----l111personation by the responde11t as an advocate-Cheating the C seats of justice as well as the litigant public for eight long years-Effect of besmirching the reputation of tile Bar and making the public look upon every other member of the Bar with suspectful eyes-<)imes committed by him should have been dealt with dete1rently-Conside1ing the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the off ender, cowts not D justified in granting relief under section 4(1) of the Act-Sentence of six months R.I. and fine imposed. The acceptance of compemation by the Bar Association from a bogus practitioner-Would not enhance the revered nobility of the legal prof es- sion--But would fwther tamish their image and lower them in the estimation E of the public. Words and Phrases : 'Character' of the offende~eaning of-In the context of sub-section ( 1) of section 4 of the Probation of Off enders Act, 1958. F In the year 1978, the respondent got himself enrolled as a member of the Nilgiris Bar Association by falsely representing himself to be a qualified legal practitioner enrolled with the State Bar Council. He estab- lished a flourishing practice which he continued until 1985. Some suspi- cious members of the Bar made secret inquiries which revealed that the G credentials of the respondent were bogus and that he had been impostur- ing as a lawyer and cheating both the courts and the litigants for eight long years. The respondent was charge-sheeted for criminal offences under sec- tions 419 & 420 of the Indian Penal Code. He pleaded guilty to the said H charges and prayed for mercy from the Court, whereupon the concerned 246 , NILGIRIS BAR ASSOCIATION v. T.K. MAHALINGAM 247 judicial magistrate released him under section 4 of the Probation of A Offenders Act 1958. The Bar Association challenged the order of the magistrate in revision filed before the High Court of Madras. While appreciating the stand adopted by the Bar and praising their efforts to restore the reputa· tion and credibility of the Bar by cleansing itself from the deception prac· B ticed by the respondent, the High Court declined to interfere with the order of the Magistrate. Instead, as a consolation to the Bar, the High Court by the impugned order, directed the respondent to donate Rs.15,000 to the Bar Associa· tion for purchase of Library books. The High Court advised the Bar to act magnanimously and accept the written repentance and offer of compensation C money by the respondent, which in his considered opinion, was evidence of his reformation. The High Court was of the view that such an act of magnanimity would enhance the revered nobility of the legal profession. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The crimes committed by the respondent should have been dealt with deterrently and the ameliorative reliefs envisaged under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 should have been kept at bay. The respondent is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a D fine of Rs. 10,000 for the offences committed by him under Sections 419 & E 420 IPC. [253-E-F; 254-A] 1.1. The relief envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Proba· tion of Offenders Act 1958 can be granted only in appropriate cases and subject to the conditions and limitations laid down in the said provision. Although no fixed yardstick can be laid down to measure the nature of the F offence for affording or denying the said relief, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence could have had on the victims and whether considerations of deterrence can be overlooked. (251-D; 252-B-D] 2. Mter taking into account the circumstances of the ca~e, among which "the nature of the offence and the character of the offender" must have overriding considerations, the Court must form its considered judi· cial opinion as to whether it would be appropriate in that case to release the accused as envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Probation of G Offenders Act. (251-G-H; 252-A] H 248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A 2.1. The offence committe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.