Summoning of Advocate By Investigating Officer Really Disturbing, Communication With Client Privileged Irrespective Of Status: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court while calling out the summoning of an Advocate by the Investigating Officer has observed that it is really disturbing and communication with client is always privileged irrespective of their status.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition filed by a practicing Advocate against summon issued to him under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1996 to face enquiry in relation to a case he is handling.

The single bench of Justice Ananda Sen observed, "Summoning of an Advocate, who is defending the accused, by the Investigating Officer, who is investigating the crime, is really disturbing. Any communication between an Advocate and his client, no matter what is the status of his client, is a privileged communication. Whatever he has communicated with the accused, cannot be forced to be divulged before any Investigating Officer. Thus, prima facie, this Court feels that only to know the details of the privileged communication, this summon has been issued. This is unfortunate."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Ajay Kr. Sah while the Respondent was represented by Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar.

The Summon mentioned that there is necessity to make an enquiry under Section 8 of the RP(UP) Act, 1996, thus the presence of the Petitioner is necessary for recording his statement.

Counsel for the Petitioner while questioning the propriety of the summon argued that admittedly the Petitioner is a lawyer and defending three or four of the accused in the same case.

The Court noted that the Accused in his confessional statement has stated that the Petitioner is their Defence Counsel and being a counsel assured them to continue with their activities, as he will save them which led to the summon being issued.

Calling it an unfortunate incident, the Court made it clear that the Respondents will not issue any further Notice of similar nature to the Petitioner till disposal of the petition.

The Petition was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Agniva Sarkar vs. The Union of India

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate Ajay Kr. Sah

Respondent- Additional Solicitor General of India Anil Kumar, CGC Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Assistant Counsel to Additional Solicitor General of India Chandana Kumari

Click here to read/ download Order