BAWA MOHAN SINGH SETHI Vs. BABU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Section 13 of the Legal Prac titioners Act was filed in the high Court at Patiala in March, 1956 making allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Babu Ram, an Advocate of this Court, who was then an advocate of the Pepsu High Court.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that the petitioner Mohan Singh Sethi claimed that certain sums amounting to over Rs. 21,000/- were due to him from the Government for certain works which he had carried out as a contractor in connection with the ghaggar Division of the Bhakra Canal and with a view to realising these sums he engaged the respondent who admittedly drafted and sent a notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, dated 23-2-1955, stating his claim in detail to the Chief secretary of the PEPSU Government with copies to the Chief Engineer, Patiala, superintending Engineer, PEPSU, Bhakra Circle, Patiala, and the Executive Engineer, Ghaggar Division, Nabha. It seems that the petitioner was also alleging that the Executive Engineer, Nabha, had been con ducting some sort of investigation into the petitioner's claims in the course of which the petitioner had en trusted to the Executive Engineer certain original documents on which he was relying in order to sub-stantiate his claims, and the Executive Engineer was refusing to return these documents to him, and was also refusing to let him have the copies of the statements of some of his subordinates which he had re corded in the investigation. It is not in dispute that in connection with these documents and statements a letter was drawn up by Mr. Ram Joginder Rai Pleader, the son-in-law and partner of the respondent, in the original draft of which (Exhibit A. W. 1/g) certain additions and corrections were made by the respondent himself and that this letter was sent to the Executive Engineer on 25-4-1955. (2a) The notice under Section 80, Civil Procedure Code, naturally contained a threat to bring a suit against the Government if the petitioner's claims were not met, and the letter to the Executive Engineer threatened both civil and criminal action against him in case of non-compliance with the demands contained in it.

(3.) THE petitioner alleges that he engaged Mr. Babu Ram for the purpose of conducting this threatened litigation and that he paid him a total sum of Rs. 625/- representing Rs. 125/- for the threatened criminal proceedings and Rs. 500/- for the civil suit. The petitioner actually filed a criminal complaint in the Court of a Magistrate at Patiala on 27-5-1955 under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 109 and Section 477. Indian Penal Code, in which ho made Faqir Ghana Dhawan, Executive Engineer, Suresh Chand Jain, Sub-Divisional officer, and. Raghu Nath Sharma, Overseer, accused, and it is not in dispute that while this complaint was still at the stage of preliminary evidence under Section 202, Criminal Procedure Code, Mr. Babu Ram appeared in the Court of the magistrate on behalf of the accused and urged that the complaint should be dismissed under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, both on a technical ground regarding want of sanction under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, as well as on the merits. A copy of the order of the Magistrate, dated 15-7-1955, which has been placed on the file, shows that while he ordered the remainder of the complainant's evidence to be recorded under Section 202, Criminal Procedure code, he ordered that the accused should be heard before any further order was passed.