1983 (8) TMI 303 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Initiation and validity of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
2. Examination of charges of professional misconduct against the appellant.
3. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee in appellate proceedings.
4. Remand of the case by the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Initiation and Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings Against the Appellant:
The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the appellant, an advocate, based on a complaint by Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand. The allegations included forging an application and implicating an Assistant Registrar in a criminal case, and forging a Vakalatnama and consent application in a civil suit. The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The appellant did not enter the witness box to deny or contradict the allegations, which was noted as significant by the disciplinary committee.

2. Examination of Charges of Professional Misconduct Against the Appellant:
Three charges were framed against the appellant:
- Charge 1: Whether the advocate got a gift deed executed against Khazan Singh's instructions.
- Charge 2: Whether the advocate got a forged Vakalatnama and written statement filed on behalf of Khazan Singh.
- Charge 3: Whether the advocate filed an antedated application and falsely implicated an Assistant Registrar.

The disciplinary committee found the appellant guilty of the first two charges but not the third. The evidence from Chhotey Singh, who later sought to withdraw from the complaint and supported the appellant, was discarded due to inconsistencies and his relationship with the appellant. The Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee reversed the findings on charges 1 and 2, citing unreliable affidavits and lack of personal knowledge in the statements. Charge 3 was remitted back to the State Bar Council for lack of adequate reasons in the disciplinary committee's decision.

3. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee in Appellate Proceedings:
The jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961, was examined. The committee has wide jurisdiction to pass any order it deems fit, including varying the punishment imposed by the State Bar Council's disciplinary committee. The appellate body's jurisdiction encompasses the power to review and enhance punishment, ensuring the integrity of the legal profession is maintained. The committee's decision must be germane to the functions of the Bar Council of India and relevant to the Act's purposes.

4. Remand of the Case by the Bar Council of India's Disciplinary Committee:
The Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee remanded the matter concerning Charge 3 to the State Bar Council, directing it to provide adequate reasons for its decision. This action was within the appellate body's powers and was not constrained by technical rules of appeal against acquittal. The appellant's counsel had requested the remand during the appeal hearing, which was not adequately countered by the appellant's current counsel. The Supreme Court found no merit in interfering with the remand order, emphasizing the importance of the appellant presenting his defense before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bar Council of India's disciplinary committee's decision to remand the case for Charge 3. The appellant's failure to participate in the initial proceedings and the legislative intent behind the Advocates Act were significant factors in the Court's decision. The appellant was encouraged to present his defense before the State Bar Council's disciplinary committee.