Nagpur: Down a lot in the young lawyer because of “misleading justice”, the Nagpur bench the Bombay High Court rejected the request by two Mumbai bomb explosions convicted to seek parole.
Applicants – Asgar levels of Sheikh and Mohd Jacob Nagul – pray for the liberation through a lawyer remembering the amendment to ‘bombing conditional liberation and leave rules’, allowing prisoners to be released to contain the spread of prison in Covid-19.
“We ‘re of the view that lawyers made an effort to mislead the court by suppressing material facts that the two applicants did not meet the requirements to be released on emergency conditional liberation because they had surrendered late on previous occasions,” Division benches consisting of Hakys Vinay Deshpande and Amit Burbar is said.
Bench shows that when a lawyer made a statement in front of the court, it was assumed that it was made in their capacity as an officer, and not an effort to get profitable commands by pressing material facts or binding precedents.
“Things involving complicated legal questions are often discarded by the court based on lawyers’ statements.
They become court officers, their statements are usually accepted as true and true.
We argue that lawyers try to twist relevant facts and reject material facts to seize A profitable order, “the court was observed.
Judges said that regardless of the availability of many legal software for research, Reliance was placed on the HC judgment that was passed without regard to the previous full bench judgment.
“This is similar to relying on rejected assessments that produce a waste of time time .
“Pressing the failure in charge of misrepresentation on the sending system in this country, the judge reaffirms the task of the advocate, at all levels, is re-examining and verifying the legal position and the facts of the case before making a presentation.
“Messages must be sent to each lawyer who plays an important role in the sending system of justice to be responsible and careful in what they attended to court.
A lawyer should not hesitate in telling the right legal position when it is undeniable,” said HC.
The court added, “the legal view which is a binding precedent even if it does not support the attorney’s client, must be taken to court notice.
This obligation flows from the beliefs considered in lawyers appearing on both sides.
Being a court officer, an advocate must bring to pay attention The right legal position, both for or against one of the parties.
“