PURSHOTTAM EKNATH NEMADE Vs. D N MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an order made by the Bar Council of India in its disciplinary jurisdiction on three accusations against the appellant who is an Advocate. However, on the first two accusations the appellant was exonerated and there being no appeal against the same we are not any longer concerned with them in this appeal. It is only in respect of third accusation that we have to examine the matter because the appellant has been found to have committed the misconduct. The said accusation is as follows:

(2.) Pramila is a daughter of the complainant. On her behalf an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code was presented in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhusawal by the appellant at the instance of the complainant. The appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant to bride Shri Kalar who was the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, to obtain a result in her favour. On being demanded money the complainant became angry and he took away the papers from the appellant.

(3.) The Disciplinary Committee characterised this accusation as very serious and adverted to the evidence in this regard. We have been taken through the entire evidence adduced before the Disciplinary Committee. The defence raised is that the Shri Kalar never handled the case in which the complainant's daughter was an applicant. Actually in the entire order sheet we do not come across the name of Shri Kalar as the Presiding Officer of the Court. If really the statement of the complainant is correct then Shri Kalar should have been the Presiding Officer to obtain an order from him. In the complaint lodged by the complainant he stated as under: