Court holds no prima facie evidence against Advocate; professional privilege protects lawyers acting within scope of duties under Section 482 CrPC
In a significant judgment delivered on August 21, 2026, the Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, quashed criminal proceedings against Advocate Bijayananda Panda, who was implicated in a case involving alleged offences of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, criminal conspiracy, and money laundering. The case arose out of Narla P.S. Case No. 83 of 2016, pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, M. Rampur, Kalahandi.
Advocate Panda, enrolled in 2004, was charged in connection with legal notices he dispatched under instructions from his Senior, Advocate Haramohan Pattnaik, on behalf of their client Bidhu Bhusan Naik, pursuant to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The notices were part of a larger dispute involving a local moneylender, Karunakar Samal, accused of unlicensed money lending and misuse of blank cheques.
The petitioner argued that he merely acted as a junior lawyer executing professional instructions to send legal notices drafted by his Senior and had no knowledge or active participation in any alleged criminal conspiracy. The investigation had not yielded any incriminating material against him beyond the issuance of legal notices, and he had been mechanically included in the charge-sheet.
The State contended that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to extort money by falsely portraying legal claims, but the court found no material demonstrating the Advocate's knowledge or involvement in the alleged wrongdoings.
Relying on established precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Orissa High Court emphasized the distinction between a lawyer's professional role and criminal complicity. It observed that an Advocate acting within the scope of professional duties, particularly issuing legal notices on client instructions, cannot be prosecuted unless there is prima facie evidence of knowledge, malice, or active participation in the offence.
The Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash the proceedings against Advocate Panda, holding that continuing the trial would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and cause unwarranted harassment. The judgment underscored the importance of safeguarding the professional privilege of lawyers and cautioned against the misuse of criminal law to target legal practitioners for acts done in good faith within their professional capacity.
The criminal proceedings will continue against the other accused persons, including the moneylender and the Senior Advocate, but Advocate Panda stands exonerated by this ruling.
This decision reinforces the principle that lawyers should not be held liable for clients' alleged wrongful acts in absence of clear evidence of complicity, thereby protecting the integrity of legal professionals and ensuring justice prevails.
Bottom Line:
Advocate discharging professional duties by issuing legal notices strictly on instructions of Senior or client cannot be prosecuted in absence of material demonstrating knowledge, complicity, or active participation in the alleged conspiracy.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; Sections 420, 465, 406, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 19 of the Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939; Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002; Section 173(8) and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Bijayananda Panda v. State of Odisha, (Orissa) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972612
