(Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Mahipal Singh Rana _______________________________ Appellant
v.
State of U.P. ____________________________________ Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(s). 63/2006, decided on August 20, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and have considered details of criminal cases, which had been filed against the appellant.
2. Prima facie, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court and in the circumstances, we recall part of the order dated 06.03.2013 whereby we had permitted the appellant to enter the Court premises in Etah, Uttar Pradesh. Effect of this order is that now, once again the appellant shall not be permitted to enter the Court premises in Etah, unless he is required in any case in his personal capacity.
3. On a larger question as to whether a lawyer who has been convicted under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act or any other offence involving moral turpitude, we issue notice to the learned Attorney General, returnable on 26.08.2015 to address the issue.
4. The learned Attorney General shall be supplied with a copy of this appeal by the Registry forthwith.
5. The Registry is also directed to send an intimation of this order to the learned District Judge, Etah, Uttar Pradesh for information.
6. List on 26.08.2015.
———
