1984 (10) TMI 243 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegation of professional misconduct by the appellant.
2. Validity of the appellant's attestation of an affidavit.
3. Findings of the State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee.
4. Findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
5. Adequacy of the punishment imposed on the appellant.
6. Jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court to vary the punishment.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegation of Professional Misconduct by the Appellant:
The respondent alleged that the appellant, an advocate, attested a forged affidavit to obtain an Income-tax clearance certificate, facilitating the registration of a sale deed. The appellant was accused of attesting the affidavit knowing it was not signed by the respondent in his presence, thus committing professional misconduct.

2. Validity of the Appellant's Attestation of an Affidavit:
The appellant admitted that he attested the affidavit without the respondent being present and without administering an oath. The affidavit was used to obtain an Income-tax clearance certificate, which was necessary for registering a sale deed. The affidavit contained incorrect information, including the respondent's age and address. The appellant's attestation implied that the respondent had signed the affidavit in his presence, which was false.

3. Findings of the State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee:
The State Bar Council's Disciplinary Committee found that the appellant attested the affidavit without the respondent being present, thus rendering the attestation invalid. The Committee concluded that the appellant's actions amounted to professional misconduct. The Committee imposed a minor punishment of reprimand, despite finding the appellant guilty of serious misconduct.

4. Findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India:
The Appellate Committee of the Bar Council of India agreed with the findings of the State Committee that the appellant's attestation was improper and amounted to a false statement. The Committee, however, upheld the minor punishment of reprimand and issued a warning to the appellant to be careful in the future. The Appellate Committee also expunged certain observations made by the State Committee, which the Supreme Court later found to be an error.

5. Adequacy of the Punishment Imposed on the Appellant:
The Supreme Court found the punishment of reprimand to be grossly inadequate given the gravity of the misconduct. The Court noted that the appellant's actions facilitated a fraud and violated his statutory duty. The Court emphasized the high standards expected of legal professionals and the need for punishment commensurate with the misconduct.

6. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Supreme Court to Vary the Punishment:
The Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, to vary the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committees. The Court issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced. After considering the evidence and the appellant's conduct, the Court suspended the appellant from practice for five years, varying the order of both the State Committee and the Appellate Committee.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and enhanced the punishment for the appellant, suspending him from practice for five years due to his gross professional misconduct in attesting a forged affidavit, which facilitated a fraudulent transaction. The appellant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs quantified at Rs. 3,000.