RAGHUBANSH NARAIN SINHA PLEADER Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Saran under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act for the suspension of Sri Raghubansh Narain Sinha, Header, Siwan. The charge against him was that he was a pleader practising at Siwan and appeared for one Nisar Ahmad in the court of the Munsif Magistrate at Siwan in suit No. C. R. 69/T. 253 of 1955 (State versus Nisar Ahmad) Nisar Ahmad was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing the usual ball bond. The bail bond was filed in Court showing Ramchandra Mishra and Amin Ahmad as bailors. It also purported to contain the left thumb impression of Ramchandra Mishra. The pleader, Sri Raghubansh Naran Sinha, identified the left thumb impression of Ramchandra Mishra. Nisar Ahmed, however, abscondted. Notice was issued to Ramchandra Mishra to show cause why he should not be saddled with liability under the bail bond which he executed as surety for Nisar Ahmad along with Amin Ahmad. In response to that notice he stated that he had never signed the bail bond in question and that it was Janeshwar Mishra who put his left thumb impression on the bail bond representing himself as Ramachandra Mishra.

(2.) The learned Munsif Magistrate was accordingly moved to file a complaint against Janeshwar Mishra but he declined to file it. Against that order, criminal appeal No. 290A of 1957 was filed in the court of the Sessions Judge and that court ordered on the 23rd December, 1957, that a complaint be filed against Janeshwar Mishra under Section 205, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge also issued notice against the pleader, Raghubansh Narain Sinha, in miscellaneous case No. 1 of 1958 to show cause as to why his conduct also should not be reported to the High Court for necessary action.

(3.) The pleader showed cause. In his show cause petition he stated that the bail bond was produced before him by Janeshwar Mishra, who used to give him instructions in, the case on behalf of Nisat Ahmad. He was given to understand that in this bail bond the sureties were Amin Ahmad and Janeshwar Mishra, who also put his left thumb impression before him. Since Janeshwar Mishra was moving the matter and instructing him, he had no reason not to accept his statement as true and at the moment the bail bond was placed before him for identification, he was busy and accordingly he was not able to scrutinise carefully that the bond contained the name of Ramchandra Mishra and not Janeshwar Mishra as surety. Under that mistaken impression he endorsed the bail bond. Janeshwar Mishra also filed a show cause petition in the proceeding in which he staged the circumstances in which the mistake arose. He admitted that he had put his own left thumb impression and that was so because he thought that he himself stood as one of the two sureties for the accused and his name also appeared in the body of the bond as a bailor for Nisar Ahmed. In fact, however, the position was that originally Ramchandra Mishra and Janeshwar Mishra were to act as bailors and accordingly a bail bond with two forms was prepared showing these two persons as bailors for the accused. Subsequently, however, Ramchandra Mishra declined to act as bailor and, therefore another form was drawn up in which Janeshwar Mishra was to act as a bailor. He directed the scribe to tear up the bond which contained the name of Ramchandra Mishra but through Oversight the scribe tore off the bail bond containing the name of Janeshwar Mishra as bailor and allowed the wrong one to stand. He thought that this instruction was carried out. He also did not accordingly scrutinise the bail bond properly so as to be able to detect the error. In the circumstances nobody was to blame in the matter and it was due to sheer inadvertence of the scribe that he tore off the bail bond. Ramchandra Mishra, however, alleged, that Janeshwar Mishra was on terms of enmity with him and had certain litigations with him. He had deliberately forged his thumb impression to put him in trouble and if Nisar Ahmad, the accused, would abscond, the bail bond would be forfeited and he would have to pay the amount stipulated therein and! that it was not accidental but as a result of the deliberate plan of Janeshwar Mishra.