Table of Contents
Case Covered:
HIMANGSHU KUMAR RAY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Citation:
1. State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh
2. Bakaulla Mollah v. Debiruddin Mollah
Facts of the case
An order was passed on the taxpayer. Soon after the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Bench the Anti Fraud Department of the Kolkata Police as well as the GST Department had issued a series of notice to all the learned advocates who are regularly appearing for their clients in cases pertaining to GST/WBVAT/WBST Acts and other related enactments
Observations & Judgement of the court
When this matter is brought to the notice of this Court, the authorities of the respondent were well advised that they had no jurisdiction to issue notices to the learned advocates calling for information regarding their clients as the information given by the clients is a privileged communication given to an advocate. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh reported in AIR 1961 SC 493 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 4 Sections 126 and 129 of the Evidence Act protect the communications between a lawyer and a client made during the employment of the lawyer. It is a settled legal position that a communication is privileged if it is made to a legal advisor by a client after the commission of a crime and with a view to his defence, but it is not privileged if it is made before the commission of the crime or wrong and for the purpose of being guided or assisted in furthering or committing it. Thus, Section 126 of the Evidence Act is designed to abort the attempt to intrude privacy of the close preserve of the fund of information conveyed by the client closeted in confidence. In Bakaulla Mollah v. Debiruddin Mollah (1911-1912) 16 CWN 742 (Cal) it is held that Section 126 of the Evidence Act prohibits an attorney from disclosing an attorney-client communication without the expression concerned of the client.
Read & Download the Full HIMANGSHU KUMAR RAY VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL
[pdf_attachment file=”1″ name=”optional file name”]