1 Criminal Application No.368/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.368 OF 2010 Sambhaji s/o Maruti Wandekar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.V. Gaware, Advocate for applicant Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri A.B. Girase, Advocate for respondent No.2. Shri R.K. Temkar, Advocate present. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 1st March, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Heard. In Criminal Application No.989/2009, on 8.10.2009, a statement was made on behalf of accused/ applicant Bapu in para 6, which reads as under : “6. Though the conduct of the accused cannot be appreciated, he has tried to violate the terms and conditions by creating terror in the village and humiliating the witnesses, who are directly involved with the affair of the accused. However, since during the course of submissions, Mr. Temkar for the accused informed, the accused is the only son of his parents and father is blind, has to maintain family, the movement of the accused needs restricted for certain limited period.” 2 Criminal Application No.368/2010 2. However, subsequently, the complainant, through Mr. Gavare, Advocate, established that father of Bapu was not blind nor he is the only son as Bapu has another brother. These facts were not disputed by Mr. Girase, then representing the accused Bapu nor so disputed by Bapu in the affidavit-in-reply. Explanation was offered about brother Lahanu to be residing in another place at Taluka Paithan and independent earnings. The language of blindness of father was tried to be dulled by informing that the father has a chronic eye problem. These facts made this Court to issue the show-cause-notice to Mr. R.K. Temkar, Advocate as to why the matter in relation to making incorrect and false statement be not referred to the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to take further action. 3. In response to said notice, Mr. Temkar has filed his affidavit-in-reply. He did not dispute of making such statement. He has tendered apologies for the event that has happened. He has offered explanation that Bapu informed him, his father has very poor vision and Bapu is the only earning family member and responsibility is at his shoulder. Hence, his bail should not be terminated. According to Mr. Temkar, based on above instructions, he plainly 3 Criminal Application No.368/2010 translated the same in English and submitted it before the Court. He reiterate, the information was given on affirmation by Bapu on affidavit. However, he could not record above facts in the papers which care he should have taken. Considering these aspects, and there was no deliberate omission on the part of Mr. Temkar in making the statement before this Court, the show-cause-notice issued and response having been considered, further action contemplated against learned counsel is dropped. Inform. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cri368.2010