Jorhat, Aug. 14: Chief judicial magistrate (Jorhat) Darak Ullah has recommended “necessary action” against a lawyer and member of the Jorhat Bar Association Siddharta Bora by the Bar Council of Assam.
The move comes in wake of an inquiry carried out by Ullah against Bora, which found the lawyer guilty of professional misconduct.
The CJM had conducted an inquiry following a report from the sub-divisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) Titabar, A.K. Baruah, complaining against Bora that he violated a Gauhati High Court order while appearing in a criminal case.
In a letter sent to the Bar Council of Assam last week, the CJM recommended necessary action be taken by the apex body of lawyers in the state against Bora.
The CJM has sent copies of the letter to the Bar Council of Assam against Bora to the district and sessions judge (Jorhat) and to the Jorhat Bar Association for “needful action” against the advocate as he (Bora) on earlier on two occasions had committed the same professional misconduct.
The general secretary of the Jorhat Bar Association, Bhumidhar Hazarika, told this correspondent that the bar association after receiving the copy of the letter from the CJM, has referred the matter to its disciplinary committee.
Hazarika said the disciplinary committee was asked to carry out an inquiry and give its opinion within 45 days from referring the matter to the committee.
The SDJM, Titabar, in his report to the CJM last month had stated that a false affidavit was filed in his court (Titabar) by a petitioner (relative of an accused) on June 24 while pleading for bail for an accused in a theft case registered in Mariani police station. Bora was the advocate representing the petitioner.
The affidavit, however, did not mention that earlier a similar bail petition was filed in the court of district and sessions judge (Jorhat) and on June 17, the court of had rejected it. Bora was also the lawyer representing the petitioner there.
According to a Gauhati High Court order, while filing a petition for bail in a criminal case by an accused in the court, an affidavit has to be submitted along with the petition stating that no bail application was pending nor rejected in an upper court.
Sources in the legal fraternity said in this case as the petitioner reportedly submitted a false affidavit while praying for bail for the accused by not disclosing that earlier the petitioner had approached a higher court (district and sessions judge Jorhat) for bail, which was rejected, the petitioner provided false fact to the court.
As the lawyer was the same in both the petitions and was expected to be aware of the high court order, he should have advised his client not to file a false affidavit in the SDJM court, sources said.
Bora, however, could not be contacted.