Advocates have a duty to conduct examinations of witnesses without causing unnecessary harassment, and seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses who are present in court without making other arrangements for examining such witnesses amounts to professional misconduct.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are much grieved, if not peeved, in noticing how two advocates succeeded in tormenting a witness by seeking numerous adjournments for cross-examining him in the Court of a Judicial Magistrate. On all those days the witness had to be present perforce and at considerable cost to him. It became a matter of deep concern to us when we noticed that the Judicial Magistrate had, on all such occasions, obliged the advocates by granting such adjournments on the mere asking to the incalculable inconvenience and sufferings of the witness. When he was convinced that those two advocates were adopting the tactics of subterfuge by putting forth untrue excuses every time for postponing cross-examination he demurred. But the Magistrate did not help him. Ultimately when pressed against the wall he moved the State Bar Council for taking disciplinary proceedings against the advocates concerned. But the State Bar Council simply shut its doors informing him that he did not have even a prima facie case against the delinquent advocates. He met the same fate when he moved the Bar Council of India with a revision-petition, as the revision-petition was axed down at the threshold itself. The exasperated witness, exhausted by all the drubbings, has now come before this Court with this appeal by special leave.

3. Appellant, the aforesaid aggrieved witness, describes himself to be an agriculturist scientist. He claims to have worked as an Advisor in the UNO until he retired therefrom. He filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pune (Maharashtra) against some accused for the offence of theft of electricity. The accused in the said complaint case engaged Advocate Shri Shivde (the first respondent) and his colleague Shri. Kulkarni (the second respondent) who were practising in the Courts at Pune. The two respondent-Advocates filed a joint Vakalatnama before the trial Court and the trial began in 1993. Appellant was examined-in-chief. Thus far there was no problem.

4. The agony of the appellant started when the Magistrate posted the case for cross-examination of the appellant on 30.7.1993. As per the version of the appellant, he had to come down from New York for being cross-examined on that day, but the second respondent-Advocate sought for an adjournment on the ground that it was not possible to conduct the cross-examination unless all the other witnesses for the prosecution were also present in Court. We have no doubt that such a demand was not made with good faith. It was aimed at causing unnecessary harassment to witnesses. No other purpose could be achieved by such demand. Although the Court was conscious that insistence of presence of the other witnesses has no legal sanction the Judicial Magistrate conceded to the request and posted the case to 23.8.1993.

5. On that day, appellant and all his witnesses were present in Court. But both the respondents sought for an adjournment, the first respondent on the premise that he was busy outside the Court, and the second respondent on the premise that "the father of the first respondent's friend expired". The Judicial Magistrate yielded to that request, apparently in a very casual manner and adjourned the case to 13.9.1993.

6. On that day also the respondents sought for an adjournment but on a flippant reason. Appellant's counsel raised objections against the prayer for adjournment. Nevertheless the Judicial Magistrate again adjourned the case and posted it to 16.10.1993. We may point out that the said date was chosen by the Court as the respondents represented to the Court that the said date was quite convenient to them.

7. Appellant, thoroughly disgusted, had two options before him. One was to get dropped out from the case and the other one was to continue to suffer. He had chosen the latter and presented himself along with all the witnesses on 16.10.1993. But alas, the respondents again asked for adjournment on that day also. This time the adjournment was s