Allahabad High Court Orders State Bar Council Enquiry Against An Advocate Allegedly Involved In Running A Business

Sparsh Upadhyay

9 Nov 2022 5:37 AM GMT

  • Allahabad High Court Orders State Bar Council Enquiry Against An Advocate Allegedly Involved In Running A Business

    The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into and take suitable action in accordance with the law against an Advocate for allegedly running a business. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.The matter came to light while the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi...

    The Allahabad High Court has directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to inquire into and take suitable action in accordance with the law against an Advocate for allegedly running a business. For context, an advocate cannot run any business personally and earn a profit as per Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules.

    The matter came to light while the bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi was dealing with the bail plea of an accused, booked for dishonestly withdrawing money from the account of a business firm, owned by one Pradeep Kumar Sharma, an Advocate.

    While granting bail to the accused, the Court took into account the fact that the alleged fraudulent withdrawal was made on February 2, 2022, whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged on February 15, 2022, and there was no explanation for the delay.

    The Court further noted that the F.I.R. was lodged against an unknown person and the applicant had been implicated in the present case on the basis of his alleged confessional statement recorded by the Police after his arrest in another case. The Court also noted that two of the co-accused persons have already been granted bail in the case.

    Consequently, the Court granted bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

    However, before parting with the case, the Court took note of the fact that the informant (Pradeep Kumar Sharma), despite being an advocate, is running a business also, as he had described himself as the proprietor of 'M/s Ayurherbs Remedies India'.

    "...it appears from the F.I.R. itself that the informant/Advocate is running a business also," the Court remarked as it directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to make an inquiry into the matter and take suitable action in accordance with the law. 

    Case title - Anil Kumar v. State Of Uttar Pradesh [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No 37337 of 2022]

    Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 486

    Click Here To Read/Download Order



    Next Story