L C GOYAL Vs. SURESH JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") at the instance of the appellant who is a practising Advocate of the High Court of Delhi as well as an Advocate on Record of this Court is directed against the order dated 2-3-1998 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India on a complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) whereby the Bar Council of India after having found that the appellant has committed professional misconduct, suspended his licence to practice for a period of five years.

(2.) The facts that emerge out of the complaint filed by the complainant are these: Some time in September 1989, the complainant engaged the appellant for filing a suit for injunction on the Original Side of the High Court of Delhi. The appellant filed the suit. The appellant is alleged to have charged Rs. 25,102/- towards payment of Court-fee and also Rs. 389/- for miscellaneous charges total amounting to Rs. 25,491/-, and also a further sum of Rs. 6,500/- out of which Rs. 3,500/- was paid through cheque and a sum of Rs. 3,000/- in cash. The appellant gave receipt dated 6-10-89 for a sum of Rs. 6,500/- as well as receipt dated 6-10-89 for a sum of Rs. 25,102/-. Some time in 1992 the complainant came to know that the appellant has not deposited the process fee and also did not press the application for interim injunction filed in the suit. The complainant on an enquiry found that the appellant has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 25,102/- and also did not take any steps towards the progress of the case. On being so told by the complainant the appellant after realising his mistake issued a cheque dated 31-3-93 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/- on account of refund of Court-fee amount along with interest. The said cheque was drawn on UCO Bank and the same was deposited in the account of the Union, namely, M/s. Siemens Employees' Union New Delhi with the Central Bank of India. The said cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. Later on when the complainant approached the appellant informing him that the cheque has bounced the appellant asked the complainant to deposit the cheque again with an assurance that this time the cheque would be honoured but again the cheque when it was deposited on 15-5-93 was dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". The complainant then sent a notice dated 9-6-93 which remained unreplied. Under such circumstances the complainant filed a complaint before the Delhi Bar Council. Since the said complaint could not be decided within the stipulated time if stood transferred to Bar Council of India. Before the Bar Council of India the complainant examined herself as well as got exhibited various documents, namely, Ext. C-1 - receipt dated 6-10-89 for a sum of Rs. 6,500/-; Ext. C-2 - another receipt dated 6-10-89 which was in respect of a sum of Rs. 25,102/-; Ext. C-3 - case file of the civil suit filed before the High Court of Delhi; Ext. C-4 - cheque issued by the appellant dated 31-3-93 for a sum of Rs. 38,000/-; Ext. C-5 and C-6. Memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank respectively with respect to presentation of cheque and its dishonouring on account of insufficient funds; Ext. C-7 and C-8 - memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank with respect to first presentation of cheque and its dishonouring due to insufficient funds in the account of the appellant; Ext. C-9 - counter foil of deposit of cheque in the account of Siemens Employees' Union; Ext. C-14 the certificate issued by the S.H.O., Police Station, Tilak Marg, New Delhi dated 28-7-95 to the effect that no complaint was received from the appellant regarding theft of cheque book at Police Station, Tilak Marg. Besides that the original file of the civil suit No. 2688/89 was summoned by the Bar Council. The appellant denied the allegations that he has received a sum of Rs. 25,102/- towards payment of Court-fee and also denied his signatures on Ext. C-1, C-2 and C-4 alleging that his signatures were forged by the respondent herself. The Bar Council after considering the entire material found that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 25,102/- from the respondent towards payment of Court-fee which he never deposited in the Court and Ext. C-4 bears the signature of the appellant. Consequently, the Bar Council after having arrived at the conclusion that the appellant has committed professional misconduct, suspended his licence to practice for a period of 5 years. That is how the matter has come before us.

(3.) Sh. R. K. Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant advanced two submissions. The first submission is that the appellant having denied his signatures on Exts. C-1, C-2 and C-4 it was incumbent upon the Bar Council to have sought an opinion of a hand-writing expert for finding out the genuineness of the signatures on those exhibits. He contended that the failure on the part of the Bar Council to summon a hand-writing expert has resulted in grave injustice to the appellant. The second submission is that the appellant has never received a sum of Rs. 25,102/- towards payment of Court-fee and the finding recorded by the Bar Council contrary to it is totally perverse. Since both the submissions of learned counsel are overlapping, we propose to deal both the submissions together.