According to the matter, a petition was filed by two advocates of the Gauhati High Court. In the petition, the petitioner named Beolin Kharbhingh alleged that He is a distant relative of former Assam Superintendent of Police (C.I.D.) Shankar Nath.The petitioner stated that Shankar Nath was killed in the hit and run case while dealing with some sensitive cases involving some politically influential people.The petitioner alleged that the wife of the slain police officer had also died under mysterious circumstances.But no action has been taken in spite of giving several requests to the concerned authorities in this matter. The petition seeking direction to proceed in the matter was filed on behalf of two advocates in which the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Beolin Kharbhingh.The status report filed by the public prosecutor during the hearing of the case stated that the CID has not found any clue to establish the existence of the petitioner.The court has said in its decision that the investigation revealed that no person named that Beolin Kharbhingh also exists.The court finally directed the counsel for the petitioner to ensure his personal presence. The counsel representing the petitioner could not produce the petitioner in the court even after taking several appointments from the court.The petitioner's lawyers told the court on March 9 that the notice sent to the petitioner by registered post has been returned with an endorsement that no person by that name exists.Considering that the petition was filed in a systematic manner in pursuance of a conspiracy .The court directed the Bar Council of Assam to take action against the lawyers in this conspiracy. Along with this, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Methi imposed a cost of ₹100000 on the lawyers who filed the petition for filing the petition on behalf of the non-existent petitioner and prolonging the matter for more than the last 6 years. The bench said that it is surprising that the judicial process has been used to start and continue the case by a non-existent person for more than the last 6 years. The bench, while dismissing the petition filed in 2016, said that the role of lawyers appearing for the fictitious petitioner is important Because the lawyers accepted the petitioner's case by signing the Vakalatnama and taking all steps from time to time on behalf of the fictitious petitioner.
