Back
Supreme Court of India
R.M. LODHA & ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.
Narain Pandey
Versus
Pannalal Pandey
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6363 OF 2004
Decided On : 10-12-2012
Advocates Act, 1961- Section 38-Professional misconduct committed by Advocate-Punishment-Determination of -The professional misconduct committed by respondent was extremely grave and serious- He had indulged in mischief-making- An advocate found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing fictitious compromises without any authority deserves punishment commensurate with the degree of misconduct that meets the twin objectives - deterrence and correction- Fraudulent conduct of a lawyer cannot be viewed leniently lest the interest of the administration of justice and the highest traditions of the Bar may become casualty- By showing undue sympathy and leniency in a matter such as this where the advocate has been found guilty of grave and serious professional misconduct, the purity and dignity of the legal profession will be compromised-Respondent-advocate had even been previously found to be involved in a professional misconduct and he was reprimanded- Having regard to all these aspects, held just and proper if the respondent-advocate was suspended from practice for a period of three years (Para 18)
Facts of the Case :
Complaint was filed by a complainant herein in the instant case against respondent, an advocate before Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh alleging that he was involved in number of false cases by forging and fabricating documents including settlement documents without the knowledge of parties in the Consolidation Court.Order was passed by Disciplinary Committee, BCUP debarring respondent from practice for a period of seven years from the date of judgment. On Appeal,Disciplinary Committee, BCI, modified order of punishment and reprimanded respondent and also imposed a cost of Rs. 1,000/- and if the amount was not paid direction given that he would be suspended from practicing for a period of six months.
B.Present appeal has been filed against said order of Disciplinary Committee, BCI.
Findings of the Court :
The consideration of the matter by Disciplinary Committee, BCI was held to be clearly flawed. It overlooked the most vital aspect that seven witnesses tendered in evidence by complainant had stated clearly and unequivocally that respondent-advocate had filed forged and fabricated vakalatnamas on their behalf and they had not filed any compromise in Consolidation Court. The respondent-advocate had not at all cross-examined said witnesses on this aspect although they were cross-examined on other aspects. There was ample documentary evidence as well which proved the allegations made in the complaint that respondent-advocate had filed forged and fabricated vakalatnamas as well as compromises in diverse proceedings before the Consolidation Court. Respondent-advocate failed to tender any evidence whatsoever in rebuttal. Mere oral submission unsupported by oral or documentary evidence on behalf of respondent-advocate not justified reversal of thorough and well-considered finding by the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence let in by the complainant in support of the complaint.The finding recorded Disciplinary Committee, BCI could not be sustained. Findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP were held liable to be restored.
Result : Appeal allowed
Judgment :-
R.M. Lodha, J.
The complainant is in appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, ‘1961 Act’) aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.6.2004 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
2. The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent, an advocate practicing in Tehsil Gyanpur, District Sant Rabidass Nagar, Bhadohi under Section 35 of the 1961 Act before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (for short, ‘BCUP’) alleging that he is involved in number of false cases by forging and fabricating documents including settlement documents without the knowledge of the parties in the Consolidation Court. The complainant alleged that besides the cases of other people, in the case of the complainant also without his knowledge and other co-khatedars, the respondent filed a compromise deed by forging and fabricating their signatures and obtained orders from the Consolidation Court. The complainant gave the details of four cases in this regard. The complainant also stated in the complaint that respondent has been earlier held guilty of professional misconduct and, in this regard, referred to the judgment in the matter of Diwakar Prasad Shukla v. Panna Lal Pandey. The complainant prayed that the respondent be proceeded with the professional misconduct and be punished by cancelling his license to practice.
3. The complaint was referred to its Disciplinary Committee by BCUP. The respondent filed written statement to the complaint and denied the allegations made in the complaint. In his reply, the respondent denied that he has forged signatures or created any fictitious compromise documents. He set up the plea that the complaint has been filed against him due to enmity.
4. The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the complaint and in the course of enquiry examined seven witnesses. The complainant also produced documentary evidence. On the other hand, although the respondent filed his affidavit in support of the reply but neither he offered himself for cross-examination nor he let in any evidence in opposition to the complaint and in support of his reply.
5. The Disciplinary Committee, BCUP considered the evidence tendered by the complainant at quite some length and observed that all the witnesses produced by the complainant had supported the allegations made in the complaint; the witnesses had stated that compromises which were filed by the respondent-advocate were not signed by them and they had never engaged the respondent as their advocate to conduct their cases in the Consolidation Court. The Disciplinary Committee, BCUP also observed that the respondent-advocate did not cross-examine the witnesses of the complainant on this point. On careful analysis of the evidence, the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP concluded as follows :
“From the above discussion and from the perusal of documents it is clear that accused Advocate is involved in a very serious professional misconduct by filing vakalatnamas without any authority and later on filing fictitious compromise which adversely affect the interest of the parties concerned……..”
6. Insofar as respondent’s past conduct was concerned, the Disciplinary Committee, BCUP noted thus :-
“From the perusal of judgment passed by State Bar Council and Bar Council of India, it is established that State Bar Council had taken lenient view by reprimanding the accused Advocate which was modified by Bar Council of India who affirmed the reprimand order and also imposed Rs. 1000/- as cost, failing which accused Advocate will be suspended for the period of six months. The matter involve in the said case is that accused Advocate had filed a fictitious compromise in the Court of Consolidation Officer. Present complaint is also about farzy vakalatnama and fictitious compromise.
7. The Disciplinary Committee, BCUP having regard to the respondent’s previous professional misconduct and the finding that he was involved in a very serious professional misconduct by filing
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
