Md. Mazibuddin Ahmed vs State Of Assam

On 27.01.2017, none appeared for the appellant. On 09.02.2018, the learned counsel for the appellant, who had appeared on the said date had

informed the Court that the appellant had died in the meantime. Consequently, an enquiry was conducted to through the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Golaghat for the information whether the appellant had died. In response thereof, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Golaghat had

submitted a report dated 09.05.2018, where the conclusion arrived was that the appellant was alive and was residing at Santipur, Napur under the

Golaghat Police Station. The report is dated 09.05.2018.

On 13.06.2018, a report of the Officer-in-Charge of Golaghat Police Station was taken note of which provided that the appellant was alive and he

was residing at Santipur, Napur under Golaghat Police Station. But on 13.06.2018 also none appeared for the appellant.

On 21.08.2018, again none appeared on behalf of the appellant and on 21.08.2018 it was ordered that notice be issued to the appellant.

On 30.10.2018 when the matter was taken up, again none appeared for the appellant and in the resultant situation, Ms. S Kanungoe, learned

counsel was appointed as an Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant. In the meantime, a Vakalat-Nama dated 10.11.2018 was filed and is on

record, according to which Mr. AM Dutta, Mr. SK Sarma and Mr. NZ Ahmed had entered appearance on behalf of the appellant.

When the matter was taken up on 02.08.2021, Mr. NI Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel appeared before the Court claiming to be representing the

appellant and it is taken note of that Mr. NI Mazarbhuyan was one of the learned counsel, who had filed the Vakalat-Nama on behalf of the appellant

as per the Vakalat-Nama dated 23.02.2008. The implication thereof would be that all along where the Court had recorded that none appeared for the

appellant, it was the responsibility of Mr. NI Mazarbhuyan and the other accompanying learned counsel to have entered appearance before the Court,

but for reasons known to them, the learned counsel had consistently not appeared.

On 02.08.2021, Mr. NI Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel had stated before the Court that the appellant is untraceable. Accordingly, we ordered the

bailor of the appellant to personally appear before the Court listing the matter today. Today, Mr. M Agarwala, learned counsel has entered

appearance on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Agarwala, learned counsel has produced an acknowledgement issued by the Registry showing that his

Vakalat-Nama is filed on 25.02.2019, although the actual Vakalat-Nama is not on record.

Now, we are in a situation where we have Mr. M Dutta, Mr. SK Sarma and Mr. NZ Ahmed learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant

as per Vakalat-Nama filed on 16.11.2018 and we have Mr. M Agarwala, learned counsel also appearing for the appellant by filing a Vakalat-Nama

which is said to have been filed on 25.02.2019. We also have before us Ms. S Kanungoe, learned counsel who was earlier appointed as Amicus

Curiae by the order dated 30.10.2018.

As the learned counsel are appearing on behalf of the appellant through Vakalat-Nama, we discharge Ms. S Kanungoe, learned Amicus Curiae

from the responsibilities of further appearing on behalf of the appellant. But because of the service rendered by the learned counsel and as the

appellant is now being represented by a set of counsel, we direct the appellant to pay the nominal fee of the learned Amicus Curiae, which is stated to

be Rs.7,500/-

The appellant before the next date fixed shall pay the said amount to Ms. S Kanungoe. Now, as regards the appearance of Mr. M Agarwala,

learned counsel and that of Mr. AM Dutta, Mr. SK Sarma and Mr. NZ Ahmed, the Registry to verify as to whose appearance is to be recognized by

the Court and put up a note on the next date after giving a hearing to the learned counsel.

The order dated 02.08.2021 requiring the appearance of the bailor was apparently passed as because of the statement made by Mr. NI

Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel that the appellant is untraceable. But after going through the order sheet as indicated above, it appears that Mr. NI

Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel although initially appeared for the appellant when the appeal was filed, but thereafter consistently remained absent in

the Court resulting in the appointment of the Amicus Curiae on 30.10.2018. By another order of 21.08.2018, notice was issued to the appellant as his

earlier sets of counsel were not consistently appearing. Thereafter, Mr. AM Dutta, Mr. SK Sarma and Mr. NZ Ahmed, learned counsel had entered

appearance by filing Vakalat-Nama on 16.11.2018. Today it has also been revealed before us that Mr. M Agarwala, learned counsel has entered

appearance on behalf of the appellant by filing Vakalat-Nama on 25.02.2019.

Issue notice to Mr. NI Mazarbhuyan, learned counsel for his explanation as to why misleading statements were made regarding un-traceability of

the appellant and was it not fair enough for the learned counsel to indicate that in the meantime, the appellant is represented by another set of learned

counsel. We have also taken note that on 09.02.2018 a statement was made that the appellant was not alive.

List the matter again on 13.08.2021 for hearing of the matter.