Fact :
      This case under Advocate Act, 1961 is concerned with professional misconduct of an advocate. In this case, a complaint was filed by the appellant against the respondents-Advocate before the Bar council of Rajasthan, which was referred to the Disciplinary Committee by the State Bar Council. The complaint against advocate was that he had written a letter to his client Mahant Rajagiri stating that his another client had informed him that the concerned judge accepts bribe to give favorable orders, and so he should send an amount of Rs. 10,000 /-  to get decision in his fever, and in case he can influence the  judge himself, there is no need to send Rs. 10,000 /- to be given to the judge. The content of the letter was admitted by the respondent Advocate. However, in reply to the complaint letter, he pleaded that the services of the presiding judge were terminated due to taking illegal gratification, and that he had followed by norms of professional ethics and brought this fact to the knowledge of the client to protect the interest of his client, and that the money was not sent by the client to him. Under such circumstances, he had not committed in professional misconduct . The State Bar Council came to the conclusion that the respondent Advocate was guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for a period of 2 years.

               The respondent advocate challenged this decision before the Bar Council of India. The disciplinary committee of Bar Council of India enhanced the punishment and directed that the name of respondent be struck off from the roll of Advocate and thus he be debarred permanently from the practice of advocacy. The respondent Advocate filed a review petition before it against this decision under Section 44 of the Advocate Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India accepted the review petition and held that the Advocate is a man of 80 years old and is continuing practice since 1951. During such a long period of practice, he has never committed any  professional ethics with any ill motive. This is his first mistake. So, the review-petition was allowed and the earlier order was modified by substituting the punishment of permanently debarring him from practice with that of remanding him.

                On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the earlier order of Bar Council of India had taken into consideration all the relevant factors for arriving at the conclusion that the Advocate was totally unfit to be a lawyer having the written such a letter and so the punishment lesser then permanently debarring him cannot be imposed on guilty respondent. The Court further the held that the power of review does not have empower the Disciplinary Committee for taking a different view on the same facts of the case. The penalty of permanent debarment of practice was imposed on the respondent in view of the nature of misconduct committed by the Advocate respondent, which has been modified in exercise of review power. It is the duty of Bar Council to adhere to the required standards and on its failure to take appropriate action against the erring Advocates.

            Finally the Court set aside the review order of the Bar Council of India and restored its original order.


Post a Comment

See Also..