Bengaluru: The high court has directed Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to evolve a mechanism to identify persons practising law illegally without the requisite qualification needed as per the rules of Bar Council of India to practise.Justice HP Sandesh issued this direction while refusing to quash an investigation against M Prasanna Kumar, a resident of Bangarpet in Kolar district, against whom a cheating-cum-professional misconduct complaint was lodged by a local advocate.KSBC, having enrolled the advocate based on provisional enrolment in terms of the rule, should ensure an appropriate mechanism to prevent the illegal practice if they have not qualified in All India Bar Examination (AIBE). It should also maintain a digital record of provisional enrolment containing the date of enrolment and expiry period of two years.The council has to track advocates who have enrolled but are not qualified to continue their practice and to prepare the list of such advocates in order to curb the illegal practice, the judge specified in his order.KSBC should also create a specific mechanism so that taking automatic action is possible against people whose provisional enrolment has expired and those who have indulged in such illegal practices, considering it is an offence against society at large, the judge added.The CaseN Narayanappa, a Bangarpet-based advocate, registered a private complaint against Prasanna Kumar, the petitioner, alleging that without passing AIBE, as required under law, the accused was practising as an advocate in Bangarapet, KGF and Kolar courts illegally, based on the provisional enrolment.Though he is not an eligible and qualified advocate to practise, he has been practising intentionally with the motive to commit an offence; thereby, he has cheated judges, clients and advocates by misrepresentation, and also he has committed professional misconduct, the complainant added.Prasanna Kumar challenged the proceedings, arguing that the complainant had launched a malicious prosecution against him and that he was covered under Advocates Act and could not be proceeded against before a trial court.However, after perusing the materials on record, Justice Sandesh pointed out that though the petitioner was enrolled, his enrolment was only to practise for two years. Thereafter, he cannot practise as he had not cleared the examination prescribed under rules.
