21 Jan 2023 8:48 AM GMT
Bombay High Court's division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan on Friday rejected the intervention application of Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay in a criminal case and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 on him. The court observed that only a victim was allowed to intervene in a criminal trial. “By merely calling oneself as an enlightened member of the...
Bombay High Court's division bench of Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Prithviraj Chavan on Friday rejected the intervention application of Advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay in a criminal case and imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000 on him.
The court observed that only a victim was allowed to intervene in a criminal trial.
“By merely calling oneself as an enlightened member of the legal profession does not ipso facto mean that the applicant has concern in the matter in hand. It is the respondent No.1 (CBI) who can be said to have a concern in the matter and not the applicant, who is a stranger - neither a victim nor an accused in the case,” the court said.
The court added that an attempt was made to browbeat the court. “The applicant has not only consumed valuable time of this Court by filing an unmerited application seeking intervention but also attempted to browbeat the Court. The applicant is not a naive person,” the bench said.
Upadhyay, filed the application to oppose Videocon Group Chairman Venugopal Dhoot’s plea for bail alleging illegal arrest by the CBI. Advocate Subhash Jha for Upadhyay submitted that the appellant has in-depth knowledge of civil and criminal statutes and at the same time, also knows vedas, shastras and puranas as well. Jha said his client could recite verses of the Ramayan vebatim and talk on the subject for hours.
He further submitted that there was a perception gaining momentum that rich and powerful can get away lightly by getting an order of bail in a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even when the highest court has termed such practice as forum shopping.
The bench took strong exception to the statement. “The tone and tenor of the application ... smacks a calculated move and mala fide attempt to malign the image of this Court. Audacity and brazenness of the applicant is writ large from his conduct. We strongly deplore such attitude and conduct,” the bench said.
The court highlighted the law on the aspect of a third person’s locus standi in the criminal proceedings. A stranger cannot be permitted to intervene or interfere with the criminal proceedings, the court observed.
“We cannot permit a stranger to indirectly became an instrument to attain or obtain any beneficial achievement which one could not get through normal legal process,” it added.
Imposing the costs of Rs 25,000 on Upadhyay, the court directed him to deposit the amount with Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, Mumbai, within three weeks.
"Matter be listed for recording compliance of order of costs on 24th February, 2023," it said, while disposing of the application.
Venugopal Nandlal Dhoot Vs CBI [CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 300 OF 2023]
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 41
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment