9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a charge apprising the appellant of the precise nature and character of the professional misconduct needs to be framed? 2. Whether a finding of guilt and punishment can be inflicted in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea? 3. Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt? 4. Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies? 5. Whether an Advocate acting bona fide on oral instructions from someone purporting to act on behalf of his client would be guilty of professional misconduct? Summary: Issue 1: Framing of Charge The Supreme Court emphasized that an appropriate specific charge should have been framed to enable the concerned Advocate to defend himself properly. Even in a departmental proceeding against an employee, a charge is always framed, and an Advocate should expect similar fairness from his professional brethren. The absence of a charge and issues framed led to a virtual denial of a fair opportunity to meet the case of the other side. Issue 2: Dishonesty or Mens Rea The Court noted that it was not the complainant's case that the appellant acted with any dishonest motive or lack of probity. The appellant's defense that he acted on the oral instructions of a longstanding client, believing them to be authorized, required consideration. The Disciplinary Committee failed to address whether the appellant acted in good faith or with any oblique or dishonest motive. Issue 3: Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt The Court held that disciplinary proceedings against Advocates are quasi-criminal in nature and require the doctrine of benefit of doubt to be applied. The Disciplinary Committee must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before recording a finding of guilt. The Committee did not demonstrate that it adhered to this standard in its findings. Issue 4: Doctrine of Benefit of Doubt The Court reiterated that the doctrine of benefit of doubt must guide the Disciplinary Committee in forming an opinion. The Committee should record a finding of guilt only upon being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, and it is impermissible to reach a conclusion based on preponderance of evidence or suspicion. Issue 5: Bona Fide Actions Based on Oral Instructions The Court considered whether the appellant's actions, based on oral instructions from someone closely connected with the client, constituted professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee did not address whether the appellant acted in good faith or whether his actions amounted to negligence, imprudent or unwise acts, or professional misconduct. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bar Council of India and remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The Bar Council of India was directed to re-examine the case, considering the principles of natural justice, fair play, and the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court also directed that the appellant's name should not be mentioned in any reports or publications of the judgment, as the matter is still subjudice. The appeal was disposed of without any order regarding costs.
|
