1963 (4) TMI 104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Professional misconduct by an Advocate.
2. Jurisdiction and procedure of the High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926.
3. Validity of the complaint and procedural irregularities.
4. Discretion of the High Court to proceed with professional misconduct proceedings versus criminal prosecution.
5. Credibility of evidence and witness testimony.
6. Severity of the punishment imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Professional Misconduct by an Advocate:
The appellant, an Advocate, was charged with professional misconduct for not paying over a sum of Rs. 1,452/4/- to his clients after cashing a cheque on their behalf. Despite demands, the appellant falsely claimed to have paid the amount.

2. Jurisdiction and Procedure of the High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926:
The High Court's jurisdiction in cases of professional misconduct is neither civil nor criminal. It is a statutory power to ensure the highest standards of professional rectitude. The High Court's primary responsibility is to maintain professional discipline and co-operate with the judiciary in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court is reluctant to interfere with the High Court's orders unless there is a question of principle, violation of natural justice, or miscarriage of justice.

3. Validity of the Complaint and Procedural Irregularities:
The appellant argued that the Bar Council was not consulted before referring the case to the District Judge, which allegedly vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court noted that this objection was not raised earlier and presumed regularity in official acts. The appellant also contended that the complaint was not properly signed or verified. However, the Supreme Court found this objection frivolous, noting that the complainants signed and verified the petition before the District Judge, who attested their signatures.

4. Discretion of the High Court to Proceed with Professional Misconduct Proceedings versus Criminal Prosecution:
The appellant argued that the High Court should have left the complainants to prosecute him criminally rather than proceed under the Bar Councils Act. The Supreme Court clarified that proceedings under the Bar Councils Act aim to maintain professional standards, not to enforce criminal law. The High Court has the discretion to proceed with professional misconduct inquiries without awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings, especially when the misconduct is related to the Advocate's duty to his clients.

5. Credibility of Evidence and Witness Testimony:
The appellant claimed that one of the plaintiffs, Kagga Veeraiah, admitted receiving the cheque proceeds. The High Court found that the person claiming to be Kagga Veeraiah was likely an impersonator, and even if he was genuine, his testimony was unreliable. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's assessment, noting that the witness's ignorance about the case details rendered his testimony untrustworthy.

6. Severity of the Punishment Imposed:
The appellant argued that the five-year suspension was too severe. The Supreme Court found this submission untenable, noting the gravity of the misconduct. The appellant had not only failed to return the clients' money but also put forward a false defense and suborned witnesses. The Supreme Court opined that even striking off the appellant's name from the roll of advocates would have been appropriate, and the High Court's order was lenient.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment of professional misconduct and the five-year suspension from practice. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining high professional standards and the Advocate's duty to both the court and clients.