New Delhi, Apr 22 (PTI) A court here has referred the “questionable and objectionable conduct” of a lawyer to the Delhi High Court and the Bar Council of Delhi for assessing his professional behaviour, observing that he made “unwarranted remarks” while “scandalising” the proceedings.

In an order dated April 7, Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala noted that advocate Anil Kumar Goswami, who appeared as proxy counsel in place of the main counsel of two accused persons, said that the cross-examination of a police witness could not be conducted as the primary advocate had gone to his native place because of an emergency.

“Goswami was asked when he had been appearing as counsel for accused Pankaj Shukla and Rohit Shukla for the last several dates, could he not come prepared for cross-examination of the witness? The advocate then retorted that he is just proxy counsel,” the judge noted in the order.

ASJ Pramachala then told Goswami that, according to some documents, he had been appearing as the counsel for the duo and that the advocate had introduced himself as one of the primary advocates, claiming that he had signed the vakalatnama (authorisation to legally represent the accused), the order said “Then Goswami bluntly retorted back saying that ‘koi score settle kar rahe hai kya’ (are you settling a score?) and that ‘mujhe kya malum aapne aur steno ne kya likha”(How do I know what you and your stenographer have recorded or written?),” the order added.

The judge, in the order, said that Goswami’s response was “shocking” and compelled him to presume that the advocate had “come prepared in the court with some different intentions”.

“I have no second thought that such conduct on the part of an advocate cannot be termed as professional on the parameters of rules framed by the bar council,” the judge said.

According to the order, the court then checked the records and found that the advocate was not authorised to represent the accused persons.

It said, “It is unfortunate that to date Goswami has marked his presence as (an authorised) counsel, and today he took a somersault and went on to blame the court for marking such presence.” The judge noted in the order that Goswami’s conduct was “questionable and objectionable”.

“Hence, same is referred to Bar Council of Delhi as well as to Delhi High Court, for assessment of the same on the parameters of professionalism expected from a lawyer before the court, and on the parameters of scandalising the proceedings before the court, while making some unwarranted remarks,” the order said. PTI MNR NB NB