← Library
High Court of DelhiCRL.M.C./4349/2016

Devi Singh Panwar v. The State Of Delhi & ORS.

2016-11-22Hon'Ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta2 pages

$~31 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4349/2016 DEVI SINGH PANWAR ..... Petitioner Represented by:

In person.

versus THE STATE OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondent Represented by:

Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.

Ms. Yoothica Pallavi, Adv. for DJB/R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 22.11.2016 Crl.M.A. 18168/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4349/2016 1.

The petitioner as a Special Metropolitan Magistrate (Spl. M.M.) passed an order dated 6th September, 2016 in Challan No.58967 wherein he imposed a fine of ₹65000/- on Mukesh Bhargav, the litigant before him. 2.

Challenging the order dated 6th September, 2016 passed by the petitioner as Spl. M.M., an appeal was filed by Mukesh Bhargav being CA No.51/2016 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge wherein the petitioner D.S. Panwar, who had passed the order impugned in the appeal appeared as a counsel.

3.

Considering the fact that the person who had passed the order was appearing as a counsel, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the

appeal with costs of ₹10,000/- on the petitioner and sent a copy of the order to the Secretaries, Bar Council of Delhi and Bar Council of India for information and suitable action against the petitioner. 4.

Indubitably, the petitioner D.S. Panwar can have no grievance against dismissal of the appeal but his grievance is two folds i.e. imposition of costs of ₹10,000/- and copy of the order impugned dated 27th October, 2016 having been sent to Bar Council of Delhi and Bar Council of India for information and suitable action.

5.

Considering the conduct of the petitioner, who passed the order dated 6th September, 2016 and then in appeal appeared as an advocate for one of the litigant, I find no error in the impugned order imposing costs of ₹10,000/- on the petitioner or directing sending of copy of the order to the Bar Council of Delhi and Bar Council of India for information and suitable action.

6.

Petition is dismissed.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

NOVEMBER 22, 2016 'v mittal'