Back
Supreme Court Of India
D. AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT
Versus
President of India
Decided On : November 23, 1955
ADVOCATE - MISCONDUCT - SUSPENSION - CONDUCT UNWORTHY OF A MEMBER OF THE HONOURABLE PROFESSION - SUSPENSION FROM PRACTICE FOR A PERIOD CO-TERMINOUS WITH THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION FIXED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Advocate of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court, was convicted of an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act and sentenced to imprisonment and fine. He was also found guilty of professional misconduct by a Tribunal constituted by the Bar Council and was suspended from practice for one year by the Bombay High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's conduct was entirely indefensible and merited severe condemnation. It found that the respondent had indulged in conduct unworthy of a member of the honourable profession to which he belongs and that he should be suspended from practice for some time.
Issues: Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to professional misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that the respondent's conduct in the criminal trial was entirely indefensible and merited severe condemnation. It found that the respondent had indulged in conduct unworthy of a member of the honourable profession to which he belongs and that he should be suspended from practice for some time.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court directed that the respondent be suspended from practice for a period co-terminous with the period of suspension fixed by the Bombay High Court, namely, up to 13-10-1956.
Judgment
S. R. DAS
( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued by this Court under O. 4 R. 30 of the Rules of this Court after receipt of a report from the Bombay High Court that High Court had, by its order made on 13-10-1955 in Civil Appln. No. 1506 of 1955, suspended the respondent from practice as an Advocate of that High Court for a period of one year from the date of the said order.
BY the Rule the respondent has been required to show cause why, in view of the matter specified in the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court referred to above, appropriate action, disciplinary or otherwise, should not be taken against him by this Court.
( 2 ) THE respondent is an Advocate of some standing in the Bombay High Court and as such was also enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. It appears that in the earlier part of the year 1953 the Advocate was prosecuted before Mr. Sonavane, one of the Presidency Magistrate at Bombay, on a charge of having committed an offence under the Bombay Prohibition Act. The trial lasted from July 195 3/11/1953.
ON 18-11-1953 the Magistrate convicted the Advocate of the offence with which he was charged and sentenced him to regorous imprisonment for one month and to a fine of Rs. 201 and to regorous imprisonment of four weeks in default of payment of the fine. The Advocate went up on appeal to the High Court. The High Court on 24-2-1954 upheld the conviction but altered the sentence to one of fine of Rs. 1,000 only.
( 3 ) IN the meantime, on 25-11-1953, the trial Magistrate, Mr. Sonavane, made a report to the Registrar (App Side) of the Bombay High Court as to the conduct of the Advocate who appeared in person as the accused before him. On a perusal of that report the Honble the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court constituted a Tribunal consisting of three members of the Bar Council to enquire into the conduct of the Advocate.
THE Tribunal issued a summons against the Advocate intimating that it would enquire into his conduct as disclosed in :
(A) the report dated 25-11-1953 of Shri T. A. Sonavane, B. A. , L. L. B. , Presidency Magistrate, 18th Court Girgaum, Bombay, to the Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side, Bombay regarding Case No. 593/p of 1953 tried by him, and
(B) the judgment recorded by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 1532 of 1953 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1564 of 1953) upholding the Judgment and order of conviction passed against him by the aforesaid learned magistrate in the aforesaid case.
( 4 ) THE proceedings appear to have been somewhat protracted by reason of frequent objections made an petitions filed by the respondent but eventually on or about 16-3-1955 the respondent forwarded to the Secretary to the Bar Council Tribunal a copy of a letter addressed by him to the Registrar, High Court, Bombay and requested the Tribunal to send a report to the High Court in terms of his pleading guilty to the charges levelled against him. He concluded the letter by expressing regreat for having wasted the time of the Tribunal.
IN his letter to the Registrar, the resondent enclosed a separate written apology unconditionally withdrawing his contention that the proceedings before the Tribunal were misconceived in law and admitting that the High Court had full authority in law to refer the matter to the Bar Council Tribunal and further that the statements made by Mr. Sonavane in his report were true except in two respects therein specified.
ON 28-3-1925 the respondent submitted an additional statement clarifying and supplementing his previous apology. Thereupon the Tribunal made a report to the High Court. By this report the Tribunal held, on the respondents own admission. the allegation in the report of Mr. Sonavane to be proved and recommended that a very serious notice should be taken of the respondents conduct.
AS regards the second item in the summons the Tribunal held that the mere conviction of the respondent under the Prohibition Act did not amount to professional or other miscond
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
