BADRI NARAIN LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the District Judge of Shahabad under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act recommending that Shri Badri Narain Lal, a pleader practising at Buxar, be suspended from practice for a period of three years.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the proceeding may briefly be stated as follows. One Chhatradhari Dubey, the decree-holder in Execution Case No. 373 of 1949 pending in the Court of the 2nd Munsif of Buxar, applied in November, 1951, for withdrawal of the instalment money which had been deposited by the judgment-debtor in the said execution case. The petition for withdrawal had been filed through the pleader, Shri Badri Narain Lal, and, on 28-11-1951, the amount was withdrawn. On 25-3-1952, Chhatradhari Dubey filed a petition before the Munsif alleging that the pleader, though he had withdrawn Rs. 1,133/8, had not paid the amount to him, and was not inclined to pay it. This petition was registered as an application under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act, on 27-3-1952, and the Munsif directed that notice be issued to the opposite party to show cause by 10-4-1952, why his conduct should not be reported to this Court for necessary action. The notice was served by 21-4-1952, on which date the pleader appeared and filed a petition for time. On 3-5-1952, the applicant Chhatradhari Dubey, filed a petition stating that he had received Rs. 1,133/8.00 from the opposite party, and hence did not want to press his application. This petition was put up before the learned Munsif on 5-5-1952, and, because it did not contain a revenue stamp, a revenue stamp was allowed to be affixed to it. On 10-5-1952, which was the next date fixed, neither the applicant nor the opposite party turned up, and the learned Munsif, after stating the facts, expressed the opinion that the pleader, who had not paid the amount to the decree-holder, was guilty of "temporary embezzlement". He then sent the record of the case to the District Judge for necessary action. The District Judge took up the matter, and ordered notice to be issued to the pleader calling upon him to show cause why the matter should not be reported to the High Court, Cause was shown by 17-6-1952, & on 14-7-1952, the District Judge passed an order that he would hear this matter on 26-7-1952, at Buxar where he would be inspecting the Criminal Courts. Though the learned District Judge had fixed 26-7-1952, as the date, he took up the matter at Buxar on 25-7-1952, on which date he examined Chhatradhari Dubey and Babu Batabanji Lall, a leading lawyer of the Buxar Bar, and, on 5-8-1952 he submitted this report to the High Court recommending that the pleader be suspended from practice for a period of three years.

(3.) Mr. A. B. N. Sinha, who has appeared before us for the pleader has drawn our attention to the fact that though the matter was to be heard on 26-7-1952, the District Judge examined the witnesses on 25-7-1952, and that, after examining the two witnesses, Chhatradhari Dubey and Babu Babbanji Lall, he did not allow any opportunity to Shri Badri Narayan Lal for examining his own witnesses. The order-sheet does not also show that any argument was heard. Learned Counsel has further urged that, as there is no report by the presiding officer, that is, the Munsif of Buxar, the reference by the District Judge to this Court is incompetent, and no action can be taken on his report. Certain decisions of this Court have been relied on by the learned Counsel, and they are the decisions in - 'Mt. Janak Kishore In the matter of AIR 1916 Pat 115 (A); - 'Emperor v. Satyendra Nath' AIR 1920 Pat 274 (FB) (B) & - 'Mukhtar Manzurul Haq v. King Emperor' AIR 1923 Pat 185 (1) (SB) (C). In the first case, Mullick, J. pointed out that the terms of Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act make it incumbent that the enquiry should be made by the presiding officer of the Court, and Atkinson, J. observed that Section 14 provides a procedure to be followed, and nominates the person who should hold the enquiry and make the charge, In the second case, it was distinctly held that the section contemplates that the enquiry should take place before the presiding officer of the Court in which the misconduct or offence is alleged to have taken place. This case and the case in - 'AIR 1923 Pat 185 (1) (SB) (C)', are Special Bench decisions of this Court, and they are to the same effect. These decisions, no doubt support the contention of Mr. Sinha before us; but the learned Government Advocate has submitted that these cases were wrongly decided, and he has cited the cases reported in 'A, a Mukhtar In the matter of AIR 1938 Pat 17 (SB) (D); - 'In re Rabindrachandra Chatterjee' AIR 1922 Cal 484 (SB) (E) and - 'In re Venugopala Nayudu' AIR 1926 Mad 1044 (P). The decision in - 'AIR 1938 Pat 17 (SB) (D)', is also a Special Bench decision; but in this case no reference is made to the earlier decisions of this Court.