CHANDRA SHEKHAR SONI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under S. 38 of the Advocates Act. 1961 is directed against an order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated January 7, 1977 upholding the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan Jodhpur dated July 21, 1974 by which the appellant has been held guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for a period of three years under S. 35 (c) of the Act.

(2.) Nothing should be done by any member of the legal fraternity which might tend to lessen in any degree the confidence of the public in the fidelity, honesty and integrity of the profession. The State Bar Council gave the appellant the benefit of doubt on the first charge that the changed sides in a criminal case, holding that though such conduct on his part was unprofessional it was not tantamount to professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India rightly observes that it failed to appreciate the distinction drawn by the State Bar Council as his act in accepting the brief for the accused after having appeared for the complainant was clearly contrary to R. 33 of the Bar Council of India Rules 1935. We concur with the Disciplinary Committee. It is not in accordance with professional etiquette for an advocate while retained by one party to accept the brief of the other. It is unprofessional to represent conflicting interests except by express. consent given by all concerned after a full disclosure of facts. The appellant would not have peared for the other side except with the permission of the learned Magistrate. Counsel's paramount duty is to the client, and where he finds that there is conflict of interests, he should refrain from doing anything which would harm any interest of his client A lawyer when entrusted with a brief is expected to follow the norms of professional ethics and try to protect the interests of his client in relation to whom he occupies a position of trust. The State Bar Council however found the appellant guilty of the second charge viz. that he had procured the brief of the complainant in another case on a fee of Rs. 300 on the representation that he would secure a favourable report from the Radiologist showing that there was a fracture of the skull. The appellant was guilty of reprehensible conduct. The Preamble to Chapter II Part VI of the Rules lays down that an advocate shall at all times comport himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court. privileged member of the community and a gentleman. R. 4 of this Chapter provides that an advocate shall use his best effort to restrain and prevent his client from resorting to sham and unfair practices etc. There is a long catena of decisions laying down that offering of bribe or giving bribe or taking money from the client for the purpose of giving bribe amounts grave professional misconduct.

(3.) It appears that the complainant Bhaniya and his wife Smt. Galki were assaulted as a result of which they received head injuries. Both of them were examined by Dr. Raman Varma and he referred them to a Radiologist. Dr. Mangal Sharma. Radiologist sent a report to the Station House Officer that he found nothing abnormal in the X-ray plate of the complainant Bhaniya but from the X-ray Plate of Smt. Galki he suspected a fracture of the skull and suggested that he should refer the matter to a Specialist. The appellant approached the complainant with the X-ray plates taken by Dr. Sharma and promised to get a favourable report he was engaged as a counsel and said that Rs. 300 had to be paid to Dr. Sharma. The appellant then sent the complainant along with a letter to Dr. Sharma to the effect :