2012 (12) TMI 397 - SC - Indian Laws

Professional misconduct of Advocates - filing a compromise deed by forging and fabricating the signatures - Held that - Professional misconduct committed by the respondent is extremely grave and serious. He has indulged in mischief-making. An advocate found guilty of having filed vakalatnamas without authority and then filing fictitious compromises without any authority deserves punishment commensurate with the degree of misconduct that meets the twin objectives deterrence and correction. Fraudulent conduct of a lawyer cannot be viewed leniently lest the interest of the administration of justice and the highest traditions of the Bar may become casualty. By showing undue sympathy and leniency to the advocate found guilty of grave and serious professional misconduct, the purity and dignity of the legal profession will be compromised. Moreover, the respondent-advocate had been previously found to be involved in a professional misconduct and he was reprimanded. Thus it would be just and proper if the respondent-advocate is suspended from practice for a period of three years from today - order passed by the Disciplinary Committee, BCI is modified and the respondent-advocate is awarded punishment for his professional misconduct.

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of professional misconduct by the respondent-advocate.
2. Evaluation of evidence and findings by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP).
3. Appeal against the BCUP's decision to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (BCI).
4. Reassessment of punishment for professional misconduct.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Professional Misconduct:
The complainant filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging that the respondent-advocate was involved in multiple false cases by forging and fabricating documents, including settlement documents, without the knowledge of the parties in the Consolidation Court. The complainant provided details of four specific cases and also referenced a prior judgment where the respondent was held guilty of professional misconduct. The complainant sought the cancellation of the respondent's license to practice.

2. Evaluation of Evidence and Findings by BCUP:
The BCUP's Disciplinary Committee reviewed the evidence presented by the complainant, which included affidavits and testimonies from seven witnesses, as well as documentary evidence. The respondent denied the allegations but did not cross-examine the witnesses or present any counter-evidence. The Disciplinary Committee concluded that the respondent was involved in serious professional misconduct by filing unauthorized vakalatnamas and fictitious compromises, adversely affecting the parties involved. The respondent's past misconduct was also noted, leading to his debarment from practice for seven years.

3. Appeal to the Disciplinary Committee of BCI:
The respondent-advocate appealed the BCUP's decision under Section 37 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The BCI's Disciplinary Committee found the respondent negligent but did not agree with the BCUP's finding of forgery. The BCI modified the punishment to a reprimand and a cost of Rs. 1,000, with a default punishment of six months' suspension if the cost was not paid.

4. Reassessment of Punishment for Professional Misconduct:
The Supreme Court found the BCI's consideration flawed, emphasizing that the respondent did not cross-examine the complainant's witnesses on the crucial aspect of forgery and did not present any rebuttal evidence. The Supreme Court restored the BCUP's finding of serious professional misconduct by the respondent. The Court highlighted the importance of maintaining the purity and dignity of the legal profession and determined that the respondent's conduct warranted a severe punishment. Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the BCI's order and suspended the respondent from practice for three years.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, modifying the BCI's order and suspending the respondent-advocate from practice for three years for his serious professional misconduct. The Registrar was directed to send copies of the order to the Secretary, State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and the Secretary, Bar Council of India.

← Previous Next →