HARISH CHANDER SINGH Vs. S N TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Harish Chander Singh, has brought in challenge the order passed by the members of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty to professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of two years from the date of the communication of the order. Said appeal is filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Order 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. This appeal was admitted to final hearing and in the meantime the operation of the order under appeal was stayed. Earlier in addition to Respondent S. N. Tripathi. President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, one Syed Husain Ahmad was also joined as Respondent No. 2. He was the co-delinquent along with the appellant. He was also held guilty of professional misconduct on the complaint of the original complainant and was ordered to be reprimanded. His involvement along with the appellant was in connection with the very same transaction brought in challenge by the complainant against both these delinquents. However, said Syed Husain Ahmad did not challenge the finding of the Disciplinary Committee against him and the sentence imposed against him. At the request of the appellant, therefore, he was permitted to be deleted as second respondent in this appeal. Consequently the sole respondent who has remained in the arena of contest is the President of the Bar Association who filed the complaint before the State Bar Council on behalf of the original complainant.

(2.) In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant it is necessary to note a few introductory facts.

(3.) One Daya Ram, the original complainant before the State Bar Council, filed a complaint against the appellant as well as the aforesaid codelinquent Syed Husain Ahmad, both of whom at the relevant time were practising advocates at Akbarpur in Ferozabad District of Uttar Pradesh. In the complaint it was alleged against the delinquents that he had engaged the appellant as his counsel in a case pending before Consolidation Officer, Akbarpur between the complainant and one Bisai. Subsequently he had engaged one Tarakant Tripathi as his counsel. According to the complainant the said case was fixed before the Consolidation officer for 17th January, 1972 and thereafter it was adjourned to 7th February, 1972. The appellant who was engaged as his counsel is the resident of Village Jamnipur. The land in connection with which consolidation proceedings were pending wherein the appellant was engaged by the complainant to represent him, was situated in the same village. The consolidation proceedings then were further adjourned to 21st February, 1972. In the meanwhile, in the evening of 17th January, 1972 the appellant asked him to appoint some Mukhtar so that he may be spared of the necessity of coming to attend the consolidation case every day. The complainant alleged that at the instance of the appellant Syed Husain Ahmad, Original Respondent No. 2, the junior of the appellant, was appointed as Mukhtar and a Mukhtarnama was got registered. That the contents of the Mukhtarnama were not read over to him but he proceeded on the word of the appellant and having faith in him executed the Mukhtarnama in favour of his junior. Thereafter, however, the appellant entertained suspicion and on 29th January, 1972 he executed the Deed cancelling the above said Mukharnama and got it registered. It thereafter transpired that the appellant had obtained a Sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of his father from Syed Husain Ahmad, Original Respondent No. 2, who had acted as Mukhtar of the complainant and as such had purported to sell the said land on behalf of the complainant in favour of the appellants father. The complainant alleged that it was never his intention to authorise the appellants junior Syed Husain Ahmad to execute any such Deed of Transfer in respect of the suit property much less in favour of appellants father. All that he intended to do was to execute the Mukhtarnanma to enable Original Respondent No. 2 to do Pairwi in the consolidation case. It was, therefore, his complaint before the State Bar Council that he was duped and deceived by both these advocates, namely, Harish Chander Singh and Syed Husain Ahmad, his junior, and that the Mukhtarnama was a fraudulent deed which enabled the appellant to get the land transferred in the name of his father. This complaint was supported by an affidavit. The complaint was registered before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The complaint was sponsored by S. N. Tripathi, President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, who forwarded the complaint of Daya Ram to the Secretary, Bar Council. Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and that is how the present respondent was shown as the complainant in the disciplinary proceedings.