PRAYAG DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an order dated the 31st July 1961 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, convicting the appellant Dharampal under section 477 I.P.C. and the appellant Prayag Das under section 477 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and sentencing them to four years' rigorous imprisonment each.

(2.) On the 9th October 1947 Dharampal filed a complaint against K. N. Bhargava and his son B. N. bhargava charging them with having committed offences under Sections 325, 342 and 392 I.P.C. The accused in that case were discharged on the 23rd July 1949. On the application of K. N. Bhargava the court concerned tiled a case under Sections 193 and 211 I. P. C., against Dharampal and Seth Madan Lal in whose service Dharampal was. K. N. Bhargava and his son also filed suit No. 25 of 1950 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution against Dharampal and Madan Lal. Madan Lal died during the pendency of the suit. The suit came up for hearing before the Civil Judge, Sri R. C. Saxena on the 16th December 1957. There was some talk of compromise between the parties taut no compromise was arrived at. The suit was adjourned to the 17th December 1957 and the Civil Judge started recording the evidence of the plaintiffs. It was adjourned till the next day, i.e., the 18th December 1957. Some evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded before lunch. When the Presiding Officer returned to the court after lunch Dharampal presented an application the material contents of which as reproduced in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge were:

(3.) On the 20th December 1957 K. N. Bhargava made an application to the Civil Judge alleging professional misconduct on the part of Prayag Das in having handed ever the application to Dharampal and asking him to tear it off. After certain proceedings the Civil Judge made a report to this Court as Prayag Das happened to be an Advocate. On the 4th March 1958 Prayag Das filed a lengthy rejoinder in this Court denying that he had asked Dharampal to tear the application into pieces or had committed any professional misconduct. A Full Bench of this Court held on the 19th March 1958 that the facts disclosed were insufficient to justify the institution of the proceedings for professional misconduct against the accused.