CROWN Vs. B. PURAN CHAND, ADVOCATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Government Advocate Patiala draw up proceedings against Mr. Puran Chand an advocate of this Court under the Legal Practitioners Act and the statement of charges against him reads as follows:

(2.) MR . Puran Chand in the course of his address also carried me through the facts of the original case which briefly are to the effect that his client Nathu Bam had purchased a house which actually belonged to five brothers although the decree in which that sale had taken place was against one brother only. The argument of the counsel was that under these circumstances he had become alive to the weakness of the case and honestly believed that it would be rather to his interest that the Court -fee should not have (sic) paid. But when he received information late in the evening of 21st he still made an honest effort on 22nd for getting the money deposited but the learned Judges did not allow any further extension. The argument was further stressed that the complainant, when he filed an appeal in the Judicial Committee, did not complain of Respondent's negligence or having committed any professional misconduct as shown by the copy of grounds of appeal brought on this record and it was only after more than two years when he was called upon to make up the deficiency of the Court -fee of the trial Court that he filed this complaint against him. It was further argued that the decree with regard to costs was amended and the complainant was exonerated from that amount of court -fee which was levied against him as costs of the trial Court. The counsel concluded that the grievance of complainant was only to the extent that his appeal was dismissed for want of Court -fee and not that the Respondent had defrauded him in any way or had misappropriated his money and that the charge against him did not amount to professional misconduct.

(3.) MR . Narindar Singh, the learned Government Advocate has frankly conceded before me that the facts and circumstances giving rise to suspicion against Mr. Puran Chand do not lead to infer that his conduct was fraudulent or that he reaped any benefit out of it. He only urged that it would have been better if he should have deposited the amount even if he had not received instructions from his client till 21st and should have thus avoided any attack upon him although according to him he was doing something in the interest of his client. The question consequently for determination before me is whether the charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty has been established against Mr. Puran Chand. It would have been a different matter if he had got the cheque cashed and sp(sic)nt the money for his own use but the very circumstance that he kept the cheque intact and gave back the same to his client, leads me to think that the counsel had no mala fide intention.