"Do not call her an 'advocate':" Kerala High Court to fake lawyer's counsel

The Kerala High Court on Monday took objection to a fake lawyer being addressed as "advocate" during the hearing of her anticipatory bail plea (Cessy Xavier v. State of Kerala)..Justice Shircy V told the fake lawyer's counsel that the accused is not a lawyer and should not be addressed as such. "She is not an advocate, do not call her a lawyer, do not use the word advocate," the Court said..The accused one Cessy Xavier had made headlines across the State for having allegedly practiced law for two years without a law degree . She had appeared before various courts in Alappuzha District and was also elected as an officer bearer of Alappuzha Bar Association.Upon receiving an anonymous letter exposing Xavier's alleged fraudulent actions, the Bar Association conducted an investigation and swiftly cancelled her membership. The association had also registered a complaint with the police. .Advocate Roy Chacko, appearing for Xavier, submitted that pursuant to the complaint filed by the Bar Association in the matter, a First Information Report was registered against Xavier for offences punishable under Sections Sections 417 (punishment for cheating) and 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) of Indian Penal Code, both of which are bailable offences.Subsequently, offences punishable under 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) was added which is a non bailable offence, he stated. Further, he mentioned that during the last hearing of the case, the Public Prosecutor had informed the Court that offences punishable under Sections 465 (punishment for forgery) and 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) were also added both of which are non bailable offences..Chacko contended that only if custodial interrogation is indispensable or the crime alleged is a heinous one or there is a possibility of accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, anticipatory bail can be denied. The emphasis should be on the personal liberty under Article 21 of an accused individual, he added. Chacko then stated that there is no complaint by any of the clients against this "advocate", referring to Xavier.This remark drew the ire of the Court with Justice Shircy exclaiming, "She is not an advocate, do not call her a lawyer, do not use the word advocate!".Chacko also opposed the impleadment application filed by advocate Pramod of the Alappuzha Bar Association on the ground that Pramod is not a de-facto complainant. .Pramod submitted that the Alappuzha Bar association, of which he is a member, had backtracked after registering the complaint due to political considerations. That is why he approached the Court personally, he said. The Court allowed the impleadment application stating, "The case has been registered agains the petitioner at the instance of the Bar Association, Alapuzha. Now the office bearers of the Bar Association are not interested in proceeding with the matter and that is the only reason for him for filing this application to address the Court to oppose the bail application submitted by the petitioner. As, he being a member of the Bar Association, no doubt, he is also to be considered as a person interested in the affairs of the bar association.".The matter will be taken up again on September 8, 2021.