GAURI SHANKAR PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a report under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act in respect of one Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad, a practising pleader of Chapra. The facts are not in dispute. Shri Gauri Shankar Prasad joined the district Bar in March, 1947, On 19-12-1949, he filed an application for return of certain documents and a vakalatnama. On the vakalatnama, an endorsement was made to the effect that it was received from one Parasnath Tewari, the client, himself. On the strength of the vakalatnama filed by the learned pleader, the documents were returned to him. It subsequently transpired in a sessions case where the pleader gave evidence, that he did not know Parasnath Tewari at all and had not received any vakalatnama from him. The pleader, it appears, had received the vakalatnama from one Rajendra Prasad who, the pleader stated, was a 'karinda' of Parasnath Tewari. It was proved that Parasnath Tewari aid not execute any vakalatnama in favour of the pleader; Rajendra. Prasad was not his 'karinda' and the documents which the learned pleader had taken back were not made over to Parasnath Tewari. In these circumstances, a proceeding was started against the Pleader for having taken instructions from a person who was neither the recognised agent of a party within the meaning of the Code ot Civil Procedure nor a servant, relative or friend authorised by the party to give instructions; and. also for having been guilty of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty.

(2.) As I have said above, the facts are not in dispute. If the learned pleader received the vakalatnama from Rajendra Prasad, whom he beleived to be a 'karinda' of Parasnath Tewari, he should not have said in the vakalatnama that he had received it from Paras Nath Tewari himself. The learned 2nd Subordinate Judge of Chapra who held the enquiry against the pleader, has found that the pleader was guilty of both the charges brought against him; namely he was guilty of having received instructions from a person who was neither a party nor the recognised agent of a party nor a servant, friend or relative duly authorised to give instructions on behalf of the party; he has also found that the pleader was guilty of grossly improper conduct in having endorsed on the vakalatnama that he received it from Parasnath Tewari, though he did not know the man at all.

(3.) We are satisfied that the charges brought against the pleader have been proved. Mr. B. N. Mitter, appearing on behalf of the pleader, has suggested that we should deal with his client leniently. He has pointed out that the pleader joined the Bar in 1947 and the unhappy incident, out of which the charges against the pleader have arisen, took place within about two years, namely, on 1.9-12-1949. He has further submitted that in these hard days the pleader should be dealt with leniently and let off with a severe warning,