Back
1974 Supreme(Del) 212
High Court Of Delhi
JOGINUER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA - Respondent
Regular Second Appeal 140 of 1973
Decided On : 10/17/1974
D.LATIF, H.N.HINGORANI, SVANTANTAR KUMAR
An applicant for enrolment as an advocate has a duty to disclose any previous convictions of offences involving moral turpitude.
Headnote:
ADVOCATES ACT - Section 26(1) - Proviso - Enrolment as an advocate - Misrepresentation or fraud - Duty to disclose previous convictions involving moral turpitude - Public interest - Character of the applicant - Interpretation of the proviso.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an advocate, was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in 1962. He then applied to the Bar Council of India for the transfer of his name to the roll of the Bar Council of Delhi, which was allowed in 1963. In 1965, the Bar Council of India received a communication from the Deputy Registrar of the Punjab High Court alleging that the appellant had concealed his previous convictions of offences involving moral turpitude in his application for enrolment. The Bar Council of India issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why action should not be taken against him. The appellant appeared before the Bar Council and admitted that he had been convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, but contended that he was not bound to disclose this information in his application. The Bar Council found that the appellant had obtained his enrolment by misrepresentation or fraud and ordered that his name be removed from the roll of advocates.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had a duty to disclose his previous convictions of offences involving moral turpitude in his application for enrolment as an advocate. The court found that the appellant had obtained his enrolment by misrepresentation or fraud and that the Bar Council of India was justified in removing his name from the roll of advocates.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had a duty to disclose his previous convictions of offences involving moral turpitude in his application for enrolment as an advocate? 2. Whether the appellant had obtained his enrolment by misrepresentation or fraud?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the appellant had a duty to disclose his previous convictions of offences involving moral turpitude in his application for enrolment as an advocate. The court reasoned that the nature of the thing he was applying for and the public interest imposed on him a duty to state that he had been convicted of offences. The court also found that the appellant's failure to disclose his previous convictions amounted to misrepresentation or fraud within the meaning of the proviso to section 26(1) of the Advocates Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Bar Council of India removing the appellant's name from the roll of advocates.
( 1 ) THE appellant, Joginder Singh, was once an advocate. His grievance is that his name has been struck off the rolls.
( 2 ) ON 28th March, 1962 he was enrolled as an advocate by the Bar Council of the State of Uttar Pradesli. For a short while, he says, he practised at Shaharanpur. He then applied to the Bar Council of India under section 18 of the Advocates Act 1961 for the transfer of his name from the roll of the U. P. Bar Council to that of the Bar Council of Delhi. This application was allowed in October 1963, and thereafter he began to practise in Delhi.
( 3 ) PURSUANT to a communication received from the Deputy Registrar of the Punjab High Court, the Bar Council of India sent a notice dated 12th January, 1965 to the appellant saying :
whereas it has been brought to the notice of this Council that you made an application for enrolment under the Advocates Act of 1961 to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, that in the said application for enrolment you concealed the fact of your having been previously convicted of offences involving moral turpitude, that by such concealment of an essential fact you obtained your enrolment, and whereas it appears to this Council that this concealment constitutes misrepresentation and fraud within the meaning of the proviso to Section 26 (1) of the said Act, and whereas your name is liable to be removed from the roll of advocates under the said section, This is to give you notice to show cause why action be not taken against you. the appellant was required to file his written statement within three weeks of the date on which he received this notice, and was informed that his defelice would be considered by the Council on a date to be notified to him when he could appear in person or by an advocate duly instructed. By another letter dated 10th February, 1965, the appellant was informed that the matter would be taken up by the Bar Council on 3rd April, 1965. Both these letters were despatched to the appellant at an address in Saharanpur. According to the Bar Council they were received by him, but the appellant denies it. It does not matter because the appellant admits that in early March 1965 he learnt that an inquiry was being held against him by the Bar Council of India.
( 4 ) ON 4th March, 1965, he went to the office of the Secretary of the Bar Council of India and personally received copies of the letters dated 12th January, 1965 and 10th February 1065. Forthwith, he wrote an application for permission to inspect the file giving rise to the allegations against him, and said he would like to make a representation after seeing it. In a letter dated 11th March, 1965, the Secretary told the appellant that he could come and inspect the file on 16th March 1965 at 12 noon. When, on the appointed day, the appellant went to the office of the Secretary, he found that his original application for enrolment lodged with the U. P. Bar Council, and the connected file had not been requisitioned from that Council. So, there and then he handed over two letters to the Secretary : one asking for those papers to be summoned, and the other requesting that he be given copies of his application for enrolment and of a statement alleged to have been made by him before Mr. Hans Raj, Additional District Judge, Delhi. In answer to the request for copies, the Secretary gave a reply to the appellant on the same day telling him to apply to the appropriate authorities. Later, by a letter of 1st April, 1965, the Secretary informed the appellant that his original application for enrolment had been called from the U. P. Bar Council and would be shown to him when received, if permitted by the Bar Council of India. In this letter the appellant was also informed that time for filing his written statement could not be extended, which apparently the appellant had prayed for, an that now the matter would be taken up by the Bar Council of India on 11th April, 1965 at 11 A. M.
( 5 ) AT. or about the same time th
