1999 Supreme(SC) 310

1999(2) Supreme 503
Supreme Court of India
(From Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., V.N. Khare, J.
L.C. Goyal -Appellant
versus
Mrs. Suresh Joshi & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2271 of 1998
Decided on 12-3-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R.K. Jain, Sr. Advocate, Aseem Mehrotra, Ms. Surita Bamezai, Advocates (Ashok K. Mahajan,) Advocate (NP).
For the Respondents : Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocate.

Headnote:(i) Advocates Act-Pro­fessional misconduct - Allega­tion that in the pretex of payment of Court fee appellant misappropriated amount received from complainant-Mis­guided as regards progress of case while in fact he had not pressed interim injunction application-Sub­sequent refund of amount with interest by cheque-Dishonour of cheque-Legal notice alleging misconduct-Receipt admitted but remained unreplied-Defence that receipt for amount and cheque towards refund not issued by appellant and signatures were forged-Bar council re­jecting defence suspending appellant’s licence to practice for five years-Whether correct-yes-Valuation of suit in purposely kept vague and later amended without knowledge of complainant-Memo issued by bank showed signature on cheque was appellant’s-No complaint to police about theft of cheque-No reply to notice issued by complain­ant-Striking similarity between admitted signature and signature on receipts and cheque-Opinion of hand writing expert not necessary-Allegations well substantiated-Circumstances established speak for themselves and candidly point­ed out towards misconduct-Bar­ Council justified in imposing punishment-Undertaking by appellant that he would not repeat misconduct and would conform to standard-Suspension of practice reduced to 2 1/2 years on condition of payment of amount with interest failing which Bar Council’s order would revive.

       Held : Established circumstances stated above, clearly show that the signature on Exts. C-1, C-2 and C-4 were that of the appellant himself. Moreover, during the course of hearing of the case, we over­selves examined and compared the admitted signature of the appellant with that of Ext. C-4 leaving nothing to chance lost any injustice is caused to the appellant. On comparison, we found striking similarity between the admitted signature and that of the disputed one and there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4. The circumstances established in the present case speak for themselves and candidly point out towards the misconduct committed by the appellant. When the established circumstantial evidence is so patent that it leads to only one conclusion that the signature on Ext. C-4 was not forged; there was no need for an opinion of a hand writing expert. We are, therefore, satisfied that the established circumstan­tial evidence as well as the documentary evidence in the present case show that the allegations of the complainant were well substantiated and in such circumstances of the case, the Bar Council of India was justified in declining to summon a hand-writing expert for finding out the genuineness of the signature on Ext. C-4. (Para 11)

       The legal profession is known as a noble profession having high traditions and has been catering to the need of the society for a very long time past. Thus the members of this profession are expected to uphold those traditions and serve the society with sincerity and honestly. If such are the expectations from a noble profession, its members must conduct themselves which may be worthy of emulation. By doing any act which is contrary to the accepted norms and standards of this profession, a member of the profession not only discredits himself, but also brings disrepute to the profession to which he belongs. By such acts the credibility and reputation of the profession as a whole comes under cloud. If any member of the profession falls from such standards, he deserves punishment commonsurate with the gravity of misconduct. Initially, we were not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal. However, since the appellant’s counsel has given an undertaking on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the appellant would conform to the standards of the legal profession and further, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- to be paid to the plaintiffs of the suit, we modify the order of the Disciplinary Com­mittee, Bar Council of India of suspending the appellant’s licence to practice for a period of the suit, we modify the order of the Disci­plinary Committee, Bar Council of India of suspending the appellant’s licence to practice for a period five years by reducing it to two and a half years, provided the appellant also deposits interest on Rs. 38,000/- w.e.f. 31.3.93 till the date of payment of money to the plaintiffs @ Rs. 9% per annum. The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in the Court which has been invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank. The amount over and above Rs. 38,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court and an interest accrued on the fixed deposit shall be adjusted towards interest payable by the appellant. The balance amount, if any, shall be paid by the appellant within one month from the date of this judgment. In case the appellant fails to deposit the aforestated amount within the stipulated period, our order reducing the suspension period of the appellant’s licence to practice would stand recalled and all the consequences provided in the order under appeal shall come into effect. The appellant shall also deposit the cost as awarded by the Bar Council of India, as well as the costs of this appeal. (Para 13)

       (ii) Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Sections 45 and 47-Expert opinion-Signa­ture on receipt and cheque-Appellant alleging signature forged by complainant-No complaint to police about theft of cheque-Memo accom­panying dishonoured cheque stating signature on cheque belong to appellant-Supreme Court comparing admitted signature with alleged forged signature-Striking similarity between two-No reason to doubt genuineness of signature in receipt and cheque-Established circum­stantial as well as documentary evidence proved signature not forged-Summoning of expert not necessary. (Paras 12 & 13)