In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court criticized the conduct of a lawyer representing a Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) accused of directly sending emails to the investigating officer in the case deeming the action as improper and unethical.
Padam Singhee, the applicant was arrested under allegations of money laundering under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The petitioner’s counsel applied for bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the opposite party alleged that the petitioner and others siphoned funds availed as loans from the Punjab National Bank through criminal conspiracy, causing a loss of Rs. 252.61 crore.
Get a Copy of Expert-Led PF & ESIC Course – Enroll Now & Get Certified, Click here
During the proceedings, the applicant’s counsel sent an email to the investing officer of the petitioner’s case asking him to file the reply on time and a second email suggesting timely filing because the accused applied for bail.
The opposite party’s counsel strongly objected to the emails saying they were inappropriate and unethical. The respondent’s counsel argued that direct communication with the investigating officer questions the integrity of the investigative process.
The opposite party’s counsel argued that such communication could be perceived as an attempt to influence or interfere with the investigation. The opposite party’s counsel argued that the defense counsel’s direct communication with the investigating officer violated ethical standards under Paragraph 34 of the “Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette to be Observed by Advocates,” which mandates that all communication with an opposing party be routed through their legal representative.
Get a Copy of Expert-Led PF & ESIC Course – Enroll Now & Get Certified, Click here
The applicant’s counsel maintained that the emails were just a reminder to comply with the court’s order and nothing more.
A single bench led by Justice Samit Gopal criticized the applicant counsel’s conduct stating that sending emails directly to the investigating officer was inappropriate and improper. The court observed that such communication bypasses the legal and procedural flow established to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.
The court explained the ethical obligations of lawyers to act within the boundaries of professional conduct and avoid any actions that could cast doubt on the impartiality of the judicial process.
Get a Copy of Expert-Led PF & ESIC Course – Enroll Now & Get Certified, Click here
The court stated that a counsel cannot identify himself with the client and should not interact with agencies directly unless and until ordered by the court. The court found the opposite party’s objection to be valid.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
