WHEN you have a large circle of dear friends at the Bar and are an avid listener, you get to hear many unbelievable stories.
Today, I shall share three tales narrated over the years by my friends who had served long stints as prosecutors. I hope you find these anecdotes interesting.
***
Policemen and prosecutors share a symbiotic relationship. They often cover up for one another.
Once, the cops arrested a ‘suspected gang member’ and obtained a standard seven days remand for his ‘custodial interrogation’ which, at least in the bad old days, was a euphemism for torture with a view to extract confessions. The suspect was either innocent or a hardened criminal because he spilled no beans.
The cops tried their tested ‘third-degree methods’ but to no avail. Their most sadistic torturers finally told the prosecutor that they needed custody for at least three more days.
But the lawyers for the accused made such an impassioned plea and tore apart the prosecution case in such a manner that the learned judge had no option but to deny the request for further custody.
The prosecutor then hit upon a brilliant idea. He submitted to the learned judge: “We have just received some highly sensitive material with which we need to confront this accused person. For that, three more days of police custody may be given.”
Judge: “What is the nature of the material? Why have you not shared it?”
Prosecutor: “At this stage, I cannot share it with my learned friend but I can show it to Your Honour.”
The prosecutor turned back and the investigating officer standing behind him handed him a file. The judge motioned that the file be handed over to him on the dais.
Prosecutor: “If Your Honour permits, I would like to come up on the dais and show the relevant portions personally to Your Honour. It is very sensitive and at this stage, we do not want anyone to lay hands on it and jeopardise our investigation which has reached a critical stage!”
The judge then motioned to the prosecutor that he could come up and show him the file.
The defence lawyer protested vehemently but the judge said: “You will get everything in due course. First, let the court examine the new material.”
The prosecutor leaned forward next to the judge with the file open and whispered: “Sir, you too were a prosecutor once. We don’t have anything at all but the police need three more days to extract a confession from this accused which will lead to busting his gang. It is a sensitive case and there is pressure from the home department.”
Judge: “If you have achieved nothing in seven days what can you do in another three days? I can’t help it if the police have failed. I am inclined to enlarge him on bail right away.”
The prosecutor then used a weapon that always worked. He whispered that the commissioner of police had been asked by the home department to opine on the performance of the trial judges on the criminal side. The law and judiciary department was shortlisting judges to be considered for elevation to the high court.
The judge immediately got the hint. As the prosecutor scurried back to his seat, the judge, looking pensive, cleared his throat and announced to the defence lawyers: “I have perused the new material. Police custody granted for three more days in view of the discovery of new sensitive material.”
The prosecutor was happy, the cops were overjoyed and the ‘law and judiciary department’ found a good candidate to recommend for elevation. However, my prosecutor friend never disclosed to me what happened to the poor guy who was wrongly denied the liberty he truly deserved.
***
In another case, a sessions judge was completely against the prosecution throughout the trial. The defence lawyer was a flamboyant, well-known lawyer who loved to play to the gallery and boast about his track record of winning acquittals.
Everyone realised that in this case too, the accused would be acquitted without difficulty. The defence lawyer was losing no opportunity to belittle the prosecutor and came across to any impartial observer as a very pompous, conceited fellow.
The judge had to repeatedly remind him to focus on the case rather than needling the opponent. The prosecutor knew the judge very well as he had been assigned to that court for a long time.
Sensing that the judge did not appreciate the arrogant demeanour of the defence lawyer, the street-smart prosecutor decided to make a move that, if it clicked, could do the trick in this case which otherwise was a ‘gone’ case for the prosecution.
On the day of the final arguments, the prosecutor had a tough time placing his case amidst frequent interruptions from his opponent. The judge too looked very annoyed by the interruptions but kept quiet.
The prosecutor concluded his submissions just before the lunch recess and the court rose for lunch. The defence was to make its final submissions after the lunch recess. During the lunch break, the prosecutor decided to use the trick he had in mind. He went to meet the judge in his chamber with a very aggrieved look.
Looking at his face the judge inquired: “Mr Phekamkar, are you okay? You look sick.”
Prosecutor: “Sir, I do not know how to tell you… or whether at all I should tell you?”
Judge: “Of course, you may tell me what is troubling you.”
Prosecutor: “Sir, it is that defence counsel Advocate Waakde…”
Judge: “He is a most arrogant, insulting fellow. Don’t talk about him…”
Prosecutor: “Sir, you are right. Even I did not want to talk about the way he insults and ridicules us prosecutors in the Bar room. But, today, he crossed the line while we were having lunch… but let it be. I don’t want to upset your mood. We have to go back to court soon.”
Judge: “There is still time to go to court. I am very curious to know what Waakde said.”
Prosecutor: “Please do not get me wrong. I can suffer any insult but I cannot tolerate someone insulting the judges.”
Judge: “What did he say about judges?”
Prosecutor: “Today, he spoke only about you sir, not about other judges.”
Judge: “What did that slimeball say about me?”
Prosecutor: “Sir, he was boasting to juniors in the Bar room: ‘Look how easily I can walk away with an acquittal when a stupid man who is not fit even to be a magistrate presides over a sessions trial’.”
Judge: “That creep has such audacity?”
Prosecutor: “Sir, he looked at me and said: ‘Is that idiot even capable of appreciating evidence? He just accepts what I say because he knows I am the best. You prosecutors are all riff-raff in front of me’.”
Then, looking at the wall clock, the prosecutor said: “Sorry to have disturbed you, sir. It is time to go back to court.”
Back in court, Advocate Waakde suddenly faced a very ferocious sessions judge. Throughout his submissions on behalf of the accused, the judge, who had looked very relaxed before the lunch, started grilling Advocate Waakde intently on every aspect of the defence’s case.
All through this, the prosecutor, Mr Phekamkar, sat serenely with the smile of a satisfied cat on his face. As you may have surely guessed by now, the poor accused, Advocate Waakde’s client, who had a good case on merits, got convicted and sentenced thanks to the triumvirate of a crafty prosecutor, an egoistic defence counsel and a gullible judge.
***
Once a prosecutor on the high court panel was handed a brief in a final hearing case wherein the challenge was to an Order passed by a sessions court. The matter was listed before a newly appointed promotee judge who was reputed to be quite idiosyncratic.
The prosecutor read the impugned judgment and realised that it was so poorly reasoned and badly written that it would be set aside for the asking. There was not much for him to do for the State which had been joined as a formal party as the contesting party was someone else.
So he kept that brief aside and gave more attention to the other matters where the State had a role to play. On the day the matter was finally called out, the applicant’s lawyer began pointing out the flaws in the impugned judgment.
The learned milord too seemed to agree wholeheartedly! Milord even openly expressed doubts about the sessions judge’s mental capability and fitness. As the bored prosecutor was flipping through the prolix judgment, he finally happened to see the name of the sessions judge concerned.
He was at a loss for words. Milord meanwhile was busy picking holes in the judgment and questioning the IQ of its author. The applicant’s lawyer was pleased as punch and was grinning triumphantly.
Milord had made up his mind. He said he was not just going to set aside the impugned judgment but was going to pass some strictures. But before doing so, just as a formality, he turned to the prosecutor and inquired: “Do you have anything to say?”
Prosecutor: “I have nothing to say milord, except that you may not hear this matter.”
Milord: “I have already heard it and why should I not? Who can stop me from deciding it Mr Prosecutor?”
Prosecutor: “Does milord intend to pass strictures too?”
Milord: “Yes, if we do not take corrective measures against such mediocrity in the subordinate judiciary, such people may land up in this high court due to their seniority.”
Prosecutor: “Milord may kindly see who the learned sessions judge was.”
Milord: “I don’t care who he is. Why are you trying to protect him? That is not a prosecutor’s job.”
In the meanwhile, the applicant’s lawyer had also seen the name of the judge whose sub-standard judgment was under fire and his forehead began to exhibit beads of sweat.
He got up and said: “Milord, I am inclined to agree with my learned friend. Milord may not hear this matter.”
Milord: “This is unheard of. I am fully with you and you too don’t want me to hear the matter?”
Both lawyers together: “Milord may kindly see the name of the learned sessions judge.”
With a look of utter consternation and annoyance, the judge reluctantly turned to the page that had the name of the author of that impugned judgment. His face then contorted into several diverse expressions within a few seconds and he signalled for a glass of water.
The pattewala (usher) gave him a glass of water which he gratefully consumed.
He then bellowed: “Remove this matter from my board. Not to be placed before me.” Before anyone could react, he rose for the day and left the courtroom.
The author of the judgment which he had castigated at length was none other than the milord himself…. during his earlier stint as a sessions court judge!
Since his surname was a very common one, no one in the registry had realised it had inadvertently placed the appeal against the judgment before the very judge whose judgment had been impugned.
Read more Antics from the Adalat here.
If you love the smell of paper along with spicy satire and the ring of laughter, Raju Moray’s new book Tales of Law & Laughter is out now.