“Lawyer, an “officer of the court” should not accept the case of any accused, who confessed guilty before him- The Lawyer”
By: Balbir Singh Sooch, Advocate, Ludhiana“Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh: New special prosecutor mere eyewash”: Amritsar: Updated: October 02, 2021 06:09 AM (IST): The Tribune, Chandigarh
https://www.tribuneindia.com/
“Lawyer, an “officer of the court” should not accept the case of any accused, who confessed guilty before him- The Lawyer”: Whoever confessed his guilt before an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” not to accept such case, better to advise such guilty character, go to some other Lawyer pleading as innocent! Who does so professionally and ethically in India?
Observed: “The Dogma-Doctrine-Code of belief-System of belief is Nasty” as quoted under:
“In any case, the sole aim of the public prosecutor is not to seek a conviction, even though he is appointed by the state. His role has been interpreted by the courts as an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice”, required to place before the court all evidence in his possession, whether it is in favour of, or against the accused. He is not to single-mindedly seek conviction regardless of the evidence — a tough thing for a counsel for a complainant to do”.
Does it mean an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” has to be for the accused as well as for the complainant before the Hon’ble Court in India? Answer Has To Be “Big No”. Why?
Find Answer and Decide:
The Legal profession as well as The Doctors’ profession are above any ethics minus doing business rather to say they should never convert as business or to do any type of corruption under the garb their profession.
“What is the choice or option before an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice”, the only choice or option is that he should not accept the brief- preparation for his task- case of the accused, who confessed before such “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” that he did the crime and he is not innocent;
And similarly if any complainant confessed before any such “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” that he has filed a false and fabricated complaint against the accused, intentionally and deliberately, his brief- preparation for his task- case should not be accepted”.
No-doubt, the public prosecutor’s or any lawyer’s role has been interpreted by the courts as an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice”, required to place before the court all evidence in his possession, whether it is in favour of, or against the accused.
Does it mean an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” has to be for the accused as well as for the complainant? Answer Has To Be “Big No”! “In any case, the sole aim of the public prosecutor is not to seek a conviction, even though he is appointed by the state. His role has been interpreted by the courts as an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice”, required to place before the court all evidence in his possession, whether it is in favour of, or against the accused. He is not to single-mindedly seek conviction regardless of the evidence — a tough thing for a counsel for a complainant to do”. Does it mean an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice” has to be for the accused as well as for the complainant? Answer Has To Be “Big No”!
“In any case, the sole aim of the public prosecutor is not to seek a conviction, even though he is appointed by the state. His role has been interpreted by the courts as an “officer of the court” and “minister of justice”, required to place before the court all evidence in his possession, whether it is in favour of, or against the accused. He is not to single-mindedly seek conviction regardless of the evidence — a tough thing for a counsel for a complainant to do”. https://www.tribuneindia.com/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
https://www.facebook.com/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.thekhalsa.org/
http://www.sikhvicharmanch.
https://www.tribuneindia.com/