9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (9) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspecting a judicial record in the company of Mr. Kuldip Singh Advocate, he tore out 2 pieces of paper from an Exhibit (C-I). The pieces were thrown by him on the ground. The clerk in-charge reported the incident to the District Judge and the complaint followed. 2. The suit, record of which was being inspected, arose in the following circumstances. On February 6, 1963 Mr. Anant Ram Whig, an advocate, sent a notice on behalf of one Sarin to a certain Ramlal Hans and his wife claiming a sum of ₹ 4,370/- as reward for the success of their daughter at an examination including tuition fees. Sarin was preparing the girl for the B.A. examination. The claim of Sarin was repudiated by Ramlal Hans in a reply dated February 11, 1963. The matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Mansaram. Municipal Councillor, Delhi by an agreement dated February 24, 1963. The arbitrator gave an award for ₹ 1,000/- in favour of Sarin. The award was filed in the Court of Mr. Brijmohanlal Aggarwal, Sub-Judge, Delhi for being made a rule of the court. Ramlal Hans engaged the appellant as advocate. The appellant in his turn engaged two other advocates to conduct the actual cases and also filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and later his appeal to this Court was dismissed summarily on April 18, 1966 at the preliminary bearing. Mr. A.K. Sen appeared for the appellant. 7. The appellant then seems to have lost his head. He made successive applications of various kinds. He filed a review petition on April 23, 1966 before the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India but it was rejected on April 29, 1966. The appellant then filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) on May 23, 1966 challenging Section 38 of the Advocates Act and Rule 7 of Order V of the Rules of this Court as ultra vires Article 138(2) of the Constitution. The Writ Petition was admitted and a rule nisi was issued. The appellant before this had filed a review petition in this Court and on September 12, 1966 this Court issued a notice to the District Judge to find out the torn pieces. The District Judge reported on September 22, 1966 that the mutilated document was a copy of a lawyer's notice and that only a small piece of 1/2" was missing from the bottom of the second sheet. The pieces were not traceable. He also reported that the junior cler ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir disciplinary committee were represented by Mr. Avadh Behari Advocate, Mr. P. Rama Reddy and Mr. A.V. Rangam represented the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, the Supreme Court (a party) was represented by Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas and Mr. I.N. Shroff and the Attorney General was represented by Mr. P. Tricumdas and Mr. S.P. Nayyar. The hearing time was taken up by the appellant and Mr. Purshottam Tricumdas, Mr. P. Rama Reddy argued for 10 minutes and Mr. Avad Behari was not called upon. 11. The appellant then tried another review petition (No. 21 of 1968) on the basis of the fresh evidence and report of the District Judge Delhi. This Court (on December 2, 1968) summoned the record and allowed the petitioner to take photostats of the Ex.C-I. The appellant also filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (W.P. No. 69 of 1968). He first applied (C.M.P. 1171/68) for withdrawal of the writ petition and then withdrew that application itself. The two matters were placed before the Court on April 11, 1968 and at one time it appeared that Shri A.K. Sen had argued both of them but later Shri A.K. Sen said he had only appeared in the writ petition and not i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Disciplinary committee pointed out that in the second review petition decided by the Committee on February 26, 1967, it refused to take into consideration the report of the District Judge as it was not evidence in the case and because the Supreme Court also did not appear to have acted upon it when dismissing the review petition before it The Supreme Court's order was not a speaking order but had merely dismissed the review petition summarily. 15. The disciplinary committee next considered how the matter came before them. They refused to take into account a 'casual observation' of the Judges in the course of arguments before them in the review petition in this Court. They speculated that perhaps the appellant was advised to withdraw the review petition which otherwise would have had to be dismissed. The Committee very reluctantly looked into the statements of witnesses recorded by the District Judge when he reported about the loss of the two pieces of paper. The matter was heard and the disciplinary committee took time to consider their order. The disciplinary committee held that in considering review applications to themselves, they should not be over-technical and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant in charging the subordinate judiciary with hostility and held this to be 'frivolous and unworthy of notice.' They observed as follows : Even in our earlier Judgment we pointed out that a defence of this nature calculated to deter and intimidate responsible officers from discharging their public duty was highly reprehensible. They accordingly dismissed the review application expressing the hope that that would be a close to this chapter. In two paragraphs thereafter the majority commented strongly on other conduct of the appellant in court cases and outside it which according to them was deplorable. It is obvious that the disciplinary committee was annoyed at the repeated attempts of the appellant to have his case reconsidered by the superior authorities and the hearing he had got. 16. From the respective orders of the Bar Council of India and the disciplinary Committee, these two appeals are brought. We granted special leave in the matter arising out of the Bar Council's order limited to the following two questions : (1) Whether the Bar Council has no jurisdiction to direct the Disciplinary Committee to rehear the matter; and (2) Whether the Discipli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f India the same position obtains under Section 7(1)(d) (which is ipsissima verba with the corresponding provisions of Section 6) read with Section 7(1) which lays down the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of India to deal with and dispose of any matter arising under the Act. Therefore the general superintendence of ethics and etiquette of the profession and questions of misconduct of the members are not wholly outside the ken of the Bar Councils of the State or of India and are always within their respective jurisdictions. 19. Next, the appeal to this Court is not a restricted appeal. It is not an appeal on law alone but also on fact. Indeed Section 38 gives the Supreme Court jurisdiction to pass in such appeals any orders it deems fit. Therefore the appropriate Bar Council or this Court do not act wrongly if they entertain subsequent petitions from a person whose case has been dealt with by a disciplinary committee. 20. The power of review is expressly granted to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council which may on its own motion or otherwise review any order passed by it. The word otherwise is wide enough to cover a case referred by the Bar Council for review. There is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id on the oral evidence of a clerk who alone said that he had seen the appellant tear two pieces from Ex. C.I. The Advocate's denial was not accepted although there was word against word. There was on evidence that the pieces found on the floor matched the tear. No witness spoke of having taken the elementary care of matching the pieces with Ex. C-I. Indeed the pieces having been lost the only corroboration regarding the pieces has disappeared. The only corroboration now is that the edges of Ex. C-I show such a tear. 25. The question is whether this by itself is sufficient. There is no evidence against the appellant except that of Amrik Singh. It is true that there is no personal allegation against him of harbouring any grudge or hostility beyond saying that the staff of the Courts were against the appellant. As against this, one consideration is what was the gain to the appellant by tearing the tiny pieces? We shall presently show how tiny they were. The charge is a serious one; and we have to see the matter in the whole setting of the evidence. The document said to be torn is a copy of a notice which Sarin's Counsel had sent to the opposite side. The counsel for Sarin sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yped are manuscript. 28. The paper is exactly 34.6 cm. x 21.5 cm. As no portion is alleged to be torn from the top or the sides we may ignore the measurement of the breadth except to "compare it with the tear. The tear today is found along 17.5 cm. out of the total breadth of 21.5 cm. We have already said that except for 1.5 cm. to the left of the letters 'ficate' the tear falls directly below the typed portion and that is 15.5 cm. in length. 7.5 cm. are below the portion where the last line of typing 'ficate' to your wife' and the words 'yours faithfully' occur. The bottom of these typed letters are exactly 34.4 cm. from the top leaving a strip which would be 2 cm. In other words out of a tear of 17.5 cm., 8 cm. allow only a space of .2 cm. for any writing. 29. Now for the remaining 8 cm. This is made up of 2.5 cm. below 'tal certi' which is almost whole and there is no writing on this portion. That leaves a tear of 5.5 cm. measures lengthwise where there is no typing on top. This is made up of 3 triangular portions joined by the 2 cm. strips below typed portions. 1st triangle is 2 cm. in length with 1 cm. perpendicular from apex to base. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... blank portion but no one indulges in such a silly and useless act. There was serious allegation against a judge of the court and there was a possibility of the appellant being the target of hostility and the evidence against him was of a single clerk. There was word against word. 32. The question that arises is what are we to do. We have held above that the disciplinary committee could be asked to reconsider the matter by the Bar Council. The order of the disciplinary committee does show that although they held that the Bar Council had acted without Jurisdiction, they went on to express their satisfaction with what they had already done. The reexamination was not made objectively but with the intention of reaffirming their decision by every argument for it. No attempt was made to find whether the circumstances were such that the appellant could be said to have proved satisfactorily the contrary of what was held or had created sufficient doubt in the matter. The earlier findings were affirmed when there was no need to do so as the petition for review was held incompetent. 33. At the hearing before us the Bar Council of India appeared and supported the case of the advocate. Mr. Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substituted. This Court must in all cases go into the matter to satisfy itself that justice has been by the disciplinary committee or committees. tees. 36. We find some unusual circumstances facing us. The entire Bar of India are of the opinion that the case was not as satisfactorily proved as one should be and we are also of the same opinion. All processes of the court are intended to secure justice and one such process is the power of review. No doubt frivolous reviews are to be discouraged and technical rules have been devised to prevent persons from reopening decided cases. But as the disciplinary committee themselves observed there should not be too much technicality where professional honour is involved and if there is a manifest wrong done it is never too late to undo the wrong. This Court possesses under the Constitution a special power of review and further may pass any order to do full and effective justice. This Court is moved to take action and the Bar Council of India and the Bar Association of India are unanimous that the appellant deserves to have the order against him disbarring him from practice set aside. 37. Looking at the matter for ourselves we find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
