Judgment

DESAI, J. :- Though for all practical purposes, this appeal had become futile and inconsequential by sheer lapse of time, some life came to be infused into it because of a subsequent development which prompted the learned advocate to move this Court for hearing the appeal. The development and the event would be referred to at the relevant places in course of the judgment.

2. A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant Narendra Singh, Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the complaint of Sh. Chhotey Singh and Shri Faqir Chand. Broadly stated, the allegation was that the appellant was annoyed with one Sh. Udaibir Singh Saxena, who was, at the relevant time, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo and actuated with a desire to implicate him in a criminal case, he forged an application by ante-dating it from 6th July, 1968 to 3rd July, 1968. The application was in connection with acquisition of Bhumidari rights. Presumably, this led to the filing of Civil Suit No. 478/68 by complainant Chottey Singh against Smt. Sarbati Devi wife of his real brother and his father Khazan for cancellation of a gift deed alleged to have been executed by Khazan in favour of Smt. Sarbati Devi. the allegation was that taking advantage of the old age and mental infirmity of Khazan, appellant Narendra Singh, nephew of Khazan colluded with alleged donee in obtaining the gift deed. Further allegation was that the appellant had forged signature of Khazan in the Vakalatnama and consent application filed on behalf of Khazan in the suit. When Khazan realised that he was the victim of the machinations of the appellant, he filed an affidavit in the suit to which he was a party alleging therein that the appellant had himself forged the signatures on Vakalatnama and consent application. On receipt of this application the learned Munsif before whom the suit was pending issued notice to the appellant to show cause why appropriate action be not taken against him. However, before any order could be made in the proceedings, Khazan died and it appears that the learned Munsif dropped the proceedings, Subsequently Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee and that is how the matter came up before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

3. Three charges were framed against the appellant. They may be extracted :

"(1) Whether the Advocate concerned got the gift deed dated 10-7-68 executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Smt. Sarbati Devi, his daughter-in-law against his instructions? If so, is the Advocate concerned guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?

(2) Whether the Advocate concerned got a forged Vakalathnama and written statement through Sri Mahesh Chandra Mittal, Advocate filed on behalf of Khazan Singh in Suit No. 746 of 1968 of the Court, of the Munsif, Bulandshahr? If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct?

(3) Whether the Advocate concerned filed an application said to be antedated As 3-7-68 on 6-7-68 and falsely got Sri Udai Bir Singh, Asstt. Registrar Kanungo arrested, challaned and prosecuted? If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or any other conduct?"

Evidence was led before the disciplinary committee. It may be mentioned that the appellant did not choose to enter the witness box to deny or contradict the allegations against him. This has some relevance because after this Appeal was heard for some time, Miss Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, sought an adjournment to file an affidavit of the appellant and one Shri Mahesh Chand Mittal who had appeared for Khazan in the suit filed by Chhotey Singh. The disciplinary committee observed that Chhotey Singh, one of the co-complainants had moved an application on October 16, 1970 requesting the committee to delete the name of Chhotey Singh from the array of co-complainants. Faqir Chand prosec