ABINASH CHANDRA SADHU KHAN Vs. HEMANTA KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, a complaint having been made to this Court, the matter was referred by the Court to the Bar Council. A tribunal was constituted under Section 11 of the Act, and the Tribunal, under the rules made by this Court, heard the complainant as it was entitled to do. The Court is now sitting to consider the report of the Tribunal and Mr. Sen who desires to appear and be heard on behalf of the complainant very properly draws our attention to the question whether such appearance by the complainant before this Court is allowed by the statute.

(2.) Now, it is quite true that in Sub-section (3), Section 12 of the Act, a number of persons are mentioned who by the terms of that clause must be given notice. Notice is to be given to the advocate concerned, that is to say, the advocate against whom the complaint has been made, to the Bar Council and to the Advocate-General. But it is not stated in that subsection that notice must be given to the complainant. In Sub-section 1, Section 12, the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in the conduct of inquiries is left to be governed by the rules made by the High Court. It may or may not be that the legislature intended that the Court should have a discretion to say that all proceedings before the Court should be conducted by the Bar Council, by the Advocate-General, by some other persons; but under the rules which this Court has made the complainant is a person who is entitled to appear before the Tribunal and to prosecute his complaint. It seems to me that Sub-section (3), Sec. 12 of the Act, cannot be intended to exclude the right of the Court to hear any person other than the persons mentioned in that subsection when the object of it is to ensure that certain people shall have notice not to fetter the hands of the Court in giving notice to and hearing all proper parties. It has been pointed out to us that under Sub-section (5), Section 12 this Court has a complete right to pass such order as regards the payment of costs of the inquiry and of the hearing as it thinks fit. It seems to me to (be fairly clear therefore that it is in the power of the Court upon such an application as the present to hear the complainant. It further appears to me that in an ordinary case it would be the duty of the Court to hear the complainant, if he so desires. I have no doubt at all that any matter which Mr. Sen on behalf of the complainant may desire to bring to our notice may be properly brought to our notice and we shall hear him as counsel for the complainant. C.C. Ghose, J.

(3.) I agree. Buckland, J.