JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant Shri Manak Lal was an advocate practising at Sojat. A complaint was filed against him under S.13 of the Legal Practitioners Act by Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi. It was alleged that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct and the complainant requested that suitable action be-taken against him in that behalf. Since the appellant was not a Pleader or a Mukhtear but an advocate of the High Court of Rajasthan the complaint was Sent for enquiry to the tribunal nominated by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan under S. 10 (2) of the Bar Councils Act. The tribunal held an enquiry, recorded evidence and came to the unanimous conclusion that the appellant "was guilty of professional misconduct in having got a false stay order written by the clerk by improper means and thereby he managed to take an illegal and undue advantage for his clients and therefore deserves to be punished for, the same." When this report was received by the High Court, the matter was argued before the Court. In the result the High Court agreed with the findings made by the tribunal and directed that the appellant should be removed from practice. It is against this order that by special leave the appellant has come to this Court.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the complaint against the appellant are very few. It appears that there was a dispute concerning Jhalra well and certain agricultural plots surrounding the well between Pukhraj and others on the one hand and Dr. Prem Chand and others on the other. These parties were described in the said proceedings as Party No. 1 and Party No. 2 respectively. The appellant was the counsel for Party No. 1. As a result of this dispute the police presented a report in the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace and suggested that proceedings under S.145, Criminal P.C., should be taken. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate drew out a preliminary order on 5th July 1951, (Ex. A-1). By this order both the parties were called upon to put in their written statements as regards their claims to possession of the property in dispute. The learned Magistrate also passed an order attaching the property in dispute pending the decision of the proceedings under S.145. This was followed by another order passed on 9th August 1951, that the crop which was on the field should be auctioned, its price deposited in court and the land itself should be given for cultivation to the highest bidder for the next year. It appears that the hearing of the case was fixed for 21st August 1951. Members of the Party No. 1 were aggrieved by these orders and on their behalf the appellant preferred a revision application against these orders in the court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, on 13th August 1951. The appellant presented another petition before the learned Sessions Judge on 29th August 1951. In this petition it was alleged that the crop which stood on the fields in question belonged to the cultivators described as Party No. 1, that the crop was getting spoiled and that the cultivators would be considerably prejudiced if they were dispossessed from their lands at that stage. On these allegations the application prayed that an order should be passed not to auction the crop as well as the right of future cultivation and that liberty should be given to the cultivators to go to the well and to look after the crop pending the final disposal of their revision application before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge was not apparently inclined to grant ex parte interim stay and so on the same day he directed that notice of the revision application should be given to the other party and called upon the applicants to furnish talbana and a copy of the application. The case then stood adjourned for hearing on 6th September 1951. On 6th September 1951,when the case was called out before the learned Sessions Judge, the appellant was present. The leaned Session Judge, found that the appellant had not submitted a copy of his application as already directed but he was told that the appellant was submitting a copy on the same day. That is why the learned Judge ordered that notice should be issued after the said copy was filed. The hearing of the case was then adjourned to 12th September 1951. So far there is no dispute about the facts. There is, however, a serious dispute as to other events which, according to the complainant, happened on 6th September 1951. The complainant's case is that, after the hearing of the case was adjourned to 12th September 1951 and notice of the application was ordered to be, issued to Party No. 2, the appellant prevailed upon Shri Meghraj, clerk of the Sessions Judge's Court to prepare an actual stay order, that the said stay order was accordingly prepared and was got signed by the Reader of the Court. Then the appellant obtained the stay order from Shri Sheolal the dispatch clerk to whom it was entrusted by the Reader. Armed with this order the appellant personally took the order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and presented it to him the next day. In due course the revision application was taken up for hearing on 12th September 1951. Since no notice had been served on Party No.2 the hearing was again adjourned to 22nd September 1951. It is common ground that on 22nd September 1951, it was discovered that a fraudulent stay order had been issued from the office of the learned Sessions Judge's Court, the learned Sessions Judge then called for explanation from Shri Maghraj and directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to treat the letter of 6th September 1951 containing the alleged order of stay as cancelled. It appears that as a result of the enquiry held by the learned Sessions Judge, he found that Shri. Maghraj had committed a grave mistake and held that it would be enough if Shri Maghraj was Fined Rs.11 and administered a severe warning to behave properly in future. The complaint against the appellant is that the appellant took an active part in the commission of the fraud and was thus guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. A false order had been obtained by him by unfair means and so he was guilty of professional misconduct. That in substance is the case against the appellant.
(3.)As we have already indicated, many of the facts alleged in the complaint against the appellant are not in dispute. The appellant admits that he was present before the learned Sessions Judge on 6th September 1951. It is not denied by him that he look the envelope from the dispatch clerk addressed to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat, and that he in fact handed over the envelope the next day in the office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. His case, however, is that he never approached Shri Maghraj in this matter and that he was not in any way instrumental in getting the draft prepared. In fact according to the appellant, he did not know the contents of the envelope and it was only on 22nd September 1951 that he knew that a false order of stay had been issued by the office of the Sessions Judge by mistake. Before the tribunal, evidence was led by both the parties. The complainant Dr. Prem Chand himself gave evidence and on his behalf Shri Maghraj and Shri Sheolal were examined. The appellant Manak Lal gave evidence on his behalf. Both the members of the tribunal and the learned Judges of the High Court of Rajasthan have, on the whole, accepted the complainant's version, rejected the pleas raised by the appellant and have held that the appellant is guilty of gross professional misconduct. It is this finding which, on the merits, is challenged before us by Shri C.K. Daphtary on behalf of the appellant. Shri Daphtary has also raised two points of law in support of his argument that the order passed against the appellant must be set aside. It will be convenient to deal with these points first.