The Bar Council of Kerala has established a Sub-Committee, comprising members such as K. P Jayachandran, Joseph John, K. K Nazzer, S. Sudarsanakumar, K.R Rajkumar, and P.A Mohammed Sha. This Sub-Committee is tasked with investigating the circumstances leading to the protest by Kottayam lawyers against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as well as the subsequent events. K. P Jayachandran serves as the Convenor of the Sub-Committee, while Joseph John holds the position of Member Secretary. The Sub-Committee is scheduled to visit the Kottayam Court Centre and submit a detailed report to the Bar Council within seven days.
The cause of the lawyers' protest in Kottayam originated from the initiation of criminal proceedings against Advocate Nawab M.P., following a complaint by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. In response to these developments, members of the Kottayam Bar Association refrained from participating in court proceedings as a form of protest. The allegations against Advocate Nawab centered around the purported forgery of a surety's identity card, used to obtain a bail bond in 2013. The Chief Judicial Magistrate's complaint led to the registration of an FIR against Advocate Nawab, who became the second accused in the case. The charges filed include offenses under Sections 465 (punishment for forgery), 466 (Forgery of record of Court or of public register), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) read with 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The specific incident prompting the legal action involved the alleged forgery of a surety's identity card, an act that came to light when the concerned surety attested that his identity card had indeed been forged. Subsequently, the Chief Judicial Magistrate filed a complaint, triggering the criminal proceedings against Advocate Nawab. The charges, ranging from forgery to the use of forged documents, were brought under various sections of the IPC.
It is noteworthy that despite the legal proceedings, Advocate Nawab was granted bail by the Sessions Court. The Sessions judge, N. Harikumar, emphasized the need for a comprehensive investigation. Notably, the judge highlighted that there was no specific accusation that Nawab personally forged the documents. However, since the allegation pertained to the presentation of forged documents before the Court, the Sessions judge considered it essential to conduct a detailed inquiry.
The Bar Council's Sub-Committee, in its investigative role, is expected to delve into the nuances of the case, examining the circumstances that led to the lawyers' protest and the subsequent legal actions against Advocate Nawab. The seven-day timeframe underscores the urgency with which the Bar Council aims to gather information and present a comprehensive report on the matter.
In conclusion, the developments in Kottayam involving the legal proceedings against Advocate Nawab M.P. have sparked protests within the legal community, prompting the Bar Council of Kerala to intervene and initiate an inquiry through its Sub-Committee. The outcome of this investigation will likely shed light on the complexities of the case and contribute to a clearer understanding of the events that transpired.
TAGS: Forgery allegations Surety's identity card Bail bond FIR Indian Penal Code (IPC) Charges
