Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kapil Mohan Gautam & Another vs State Of H.P on 25 May, 2018
Author: Sureshwar Thakur
Bench: Sureshwar Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 163 of 2018
Decided on : 25.5.2018
.
Kapil Mohan Gautam & another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P ...Respondent
_______________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
__________________________________________________________________
For the petitioners : Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent : Mr. Hemant Vaid, Addl. A.G. with Mr.
Y.S. Thakur & Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Dy.
r A.Gs.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)
The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders pronounced by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. in Application No. 24ASJ II/4/18, wherein the presence respectively of Sh. Kapil Mohan Gautam, Deputy District Attorney, and, of Ms. Champa Suril, Deputy District Attorney, is recorded as counsels,' representing the offender, one Kamal Kishore, who is working in the office of District Attorney, Solan. The apt, recording, of the presence, of the aforesaid attorneys, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, appears to be inappropriate, given there occurring no communication, in, the apt reply to the show ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2018 23:01:00 :::HCHP 2 cause notice, furnished by said Sh. Kamal Kishore, of his engaging the aforesaid, as his counsels. Moreso, he was also not authorized, to engage them, as his counsel, given theirs rendering service, as .
attorneys, in, the office of District Attorney, Solan. (ii) AND besides, the aforesaid deployment(s), barring them from defending one Kamal Kishore, in proceedings drawn, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Solan under Section 228 IPC, against, said Kamal Kishore, for the latter, allegedly, committing an offence punishable under Section 228 IPC, (iii) therefore, the marking of presence of the petitioners, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the impugned order, is a sequel, of sheer inadvertence, and, consequently, the apt part of the order, wherein, the presence, of the aforesaid attorneys, is, recorded as counsel, for, Mr. Kamal Kishore, is, quashed and set aside.
2. In view of the above discussion, the petition is allowed.
The impugned order to the extent, the presence of Sh. Kapil Mohan Gautam, and Ms. Champa Suril, Deputy District Attorneys is recorded, as counsels, representing the offender, is quashed and set aside. All the pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge 25th May, 2018 (kck) ::: Downloaded on - 30/05/2018 23:01:00 :::HCHP