STATE Vs. JAGADANAND PANIGRAHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point,--which arises in this Civil Reference by the learned District Judge of balasore, regarding the conduct of one Sri Jagannath Panigrahi, a pleader,--is whether the pleader is guilty of unprofessional conduct for breach of retainer, under the Vakalatnama which the pleader accepted, signed and appeared for certain parties in a mutation case, in respect of certain lands, and then, notwithstanding the said retainer by his said former clients, the pleader subsequently appeared for the opposite party in a criminal proceeding, connected with the same lands in dispute.

(2.) THE facts are few and simple; Sri Jagadananda Panigrahi, pleader of Nilgiri, in the district of Balasore, appeared in a certain mutation case for fixation of rent and correction of settlement entry filed by certain persons (who were Sri Panigrahi's clients in the mutation case); the mutation petition was, however, drafted by another pleader; on May 21, 1957 Sri Panigrahi had accepted and signed the vakalatnama in the said mutation case; in connection with that case, he moved a petition to call for certain records on June 26, 1957; it is said that, since thereafter, the parties in the said mutation case, for whom Sri Panigrahi appeared did not come to him and Sri Panigrahi never appeared for them on any subsequent date; thereafter Sri Panigrahi's said former clients in the mutation case started a criminal proceeding against the opposite party under Section 145, Criminal procedure Code which is connected with the said earlier mutation case; On december 6, 1957 Sri Panigrahi accented and signed a Vakalatnama given by the second party in the Criminal case and certified that he does not appear nor does he "hold brief for the opposite party" being the 1st party in the Crl. case (that is to say, his former clients in the mutation case ). Thus, in the said subsequent criminal proceeding Sri Panigrahi appeared for the second party, challenging the actual possession of the said disputed lands, claimed by the First party, for whom Sri panigrahi had appeared in the said earlier mutation case. Both the proceedings related to the same lands and the dispute was between the same parties in both the cases; in the objection petition dated December 6, 1957 admittedly signed and filed by Sri Panigrahi on behalf of the Second Party in the criminal proceeding, for whom Sri Panigrahi subsequently appeared, the second party disowned the possession of the First Party for whom Sri Panigrahi appeared previously in the said mutation case, in respect of the same lands. It appears that the earlier mutation case was still pending on the file, when the subsequent criminal case cropped up. The points, to be agitated in both the cases, were substantially the same, namely, as to which of the parties were in actual possession of the lands in dispute.

(3.) IT is on these facts that a complaint petition was filed by Sri Panigrahi's former clients in the mutation case on March 29, 1958 in the Court of the District Judge for appropriate action against Sri Panigrahi, on the grounds stated in the said petition including, inter alia, that Sri Panigrahi had learnt everything about the case from them, and that knowing the said mutation case to be still pending, Sri panigrahi had appeared for the opposite party in the said subsequent criminal proceeding. Sri Panigrahi filed an explanation on August 28, 1958, his detence to the charge being that he was never entrusted with any confidential information by his former clients, and that he had already clearly forgotten about the subject-matter of the mutation case and about his appearance therein, at the time when he appeared on behalf of the Second party in the said Criminal Case; that his former clients had never approached him for appearing in the subsequent criminal case, and as such, the pleader claimed that he cannot be held guilty, and accordingly he prayed for being exonerated of the charge of allege unprofessional conduct.