STATE OF BIHAR Vs. S N PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This proceeding has been started against Sri S.N. Pandey, Advocate, Chaibassa, under Section 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act 1926. The Chief Justice of this Court received a letter purported to have been signed by one Sri Bhowrimul alleging that the Advocate concerned forged and fabricated certain documents in the Court of the Cess Deputy Collector, Chaibassa, in case No. 218J of 1955-56, State v. Messrs. Bengal Paper Mills, Ltd. A copy of the letter was also addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar. Accordingly, the Sub-divisional Officer, Chaibassa, was directed by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, to hold an enquiry and he by his report, dated the 26th of July 1957, recommended prosecution of Sri Pandey under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was then placed before the Law Department of the Government of Bihar, which recommended action under Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act. There was yet another enquiry by another Sub-Divisional Officer of Chaibassa who also submitted his report on the 10th of January 1959. The two enquiries, however, by the two Sub-Divisional Officers were held without giving any opportunity to the Advocate to put forth his point of view. In course of the enquiry, it was brought to the notice of the enquiring officers that a return was filed on behalf of Messrs, Bengal Paper Mills, Ltd., bearing date the 7th of February 1956, in response to a notice by the Cess Deputy Collector. The copy of that return, however, was surreptitiously taken back from the records of the Court. This was handed over to Sri Pandey and he made certain corrections in the copy in his own hand. A typed copy of the corrected return was then prepared and it was placed on the record of the case. As a result of it, an assessment was made by the Cess Deputy Collector in respect of the sabai grass removed on behalf of the Bengal Paper Mills, Ltd., and the cess on the quantity so removed was assessed at a sum of Rs. 50-10-0. The proper assessment should have been at a higher figure.

(2.) After assessment was over, Sri Pandey addressed a letter to Mr. Clive, Deputy Raw Materials Officer, Bengal Paper Mills Ltd., on the 11th of May 1956, in his own signature telling him that the return filed by him was not reliable and that a fresh return was filed on which the above sum of Rs. 50-10-0 was assessed as cess for the sabai grass. Along with his letter, he also forwarded to Mr. Clive the copy of the corrected return. After this, Sri Pandey and Mr. Clive fell out with each other on some matter which gave rise to a criminal case in which the Advocate was a complainant and Mr. Clive was an accused. After this, Mr. Clive, in 1957, found the letter of the Advocate of the 11th of May 1956. His stand was that this letter was not delivered to him in due course but it found its way somehow or other into his drawer and (sic) discovered it accidentally.

(3.) So far as the enquiry under the Bar Councils Act is concerned, it was taken up by the Tribunal appointed by the Bar Council of the Patna High Court at the request of the Chief Justice who forwarded the letter received in this Court to the Bar Council for necessary action. Accordingly, a tribunal was constituted which received the statements of Sri Pandey and examined a number of witnesses on the relevant questions arising in the enquiry and has submitted a report the conclusion of which stands thus:--