STATE Vs. SAT PAL SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A case under Section 494 of the Penal Code, Kuldip Kaur v. Karanvir Singh of Patiala was tried in the Court of Thakar Surat Ram Mehantan, Magistrate of the First Class at Nahan in Sirmur District. The learned Magistrate, while convicting the accused in that case on 31-10-1957, passed certain strictures against Mr. Sat Pal, Advocate of Patiala, who was defending the accused in that case. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present order to detail the strictures except to say that, if correct, they amounted to professional misconduct on the part of Mr. Sat Pal Advocate.

(2.) AN endorsement of 16-5-1960 from the Punjab Government was received in the office of this Court sending a letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, making reference to a complaint by Joginder Singh, son of Anokh Singh, Gher Sodhi Hira Singh, Lahori Gate, Patiala in regard to the strictures passed by the learned Magistrate against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. That letter is dated 21-4-10,60. With that letter was the complaint of Joginder Singh thumb-marked by him and also a copy of judgment of the learned Magistrate. It appears that a certified copy of the judgment was then obtained. In the meantime Joginder Singh sent a copy of his complaint to this Court which was received on 26-4-1960. On that complaint the matter was referred to the local Bar Council and its Secretary, by his letter of 13-8-1960, said that the Bar Council was of the opinion that an enquiry against Mr. Sat Pal under Section 10 (2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act be held.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY the matter was referred to the District Judge of Patiala by a letter of 11-10-1960 from the office of this Court for an enquiry against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. The letter was -" i am directed to forward herewith an attested copy of the judgment dated the 31st October, 1957, delivered by Shri Surat Ram Mahantan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sirmur District at Nahan in the case 'kuldip Kaur v. Karanvir Singh of Patiala' instituted in his Court on the and March 1957, under Section 494 Indian Penal Code passing strictures against Shri Sat Pal Sehgal Advocate, Patiala, and to request you to please hold an enquiry into the matter after framing charges as required under the rules framed under Section 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, and send an early report in this behalf to this Court. " It is unfortunate that the learned District Judge was only asked to hold an enquiry on the basis of the strictures in the judgment of the learned Magistrate after framing charges against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. The copy of the complaint of Joginder Singh was not sent nor was any reference to that complaint made in the letter from this Court. The State Government has been sending reminders wanting to know what has come of the enquiry. The Bar Council, as pointed out, had asked for an enquiry. These facts were not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge.