Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal filed by Hikmat Ali Khan against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated September 8, 1985, which had allowed respondent Ishwar Prasad Arya's appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal in disciplinary proceedings under the Advocates Act, 1961. The respondent, an advocate enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, was convicted on July 3, 1972 by the Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Badaun, under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act for assaulting his opponent Radhey Shyam with a knife in the court room. He was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment for the Section 307 IPC offence and nine months for the Arms Act offence. The High Court confirmed the conviction under Section 307 IPC on September 10, 1975 but acquitted him of the Arms Act offence. To avoid undergoing the sentence, a forged letter dated April 28, 1976, purportedly from the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P., was used to suspend the conviction under Article 161 of the Constitution. The fraud was discovered on September 27, 1977, and the respondent was arrested on September 28, 1977. On December 9, 1977, the IIIrd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Badaun, sent a complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. regarding this misconduct. The Bar Council of U.P. initiated disciplinary proceedings (D.C. Case No. 70 of 1981) and by order dated January 30, 1982 debarred the respondent from practice for two years, finding him guilty of gross professional misconduct by taking benefit of a forged document. The respondent appealed to the Bar Council of India (D.C. Appeal No. 4 of 1982), which allowed the appeal on June 8, 1984, setting aside the punishment on the ground that there was no material to prove the respondent prepared the forged document. Meanwhile, the appellant, Hikmat Ali Khan, filed a separate complaint to the Bar Council of U.P. detailing the respondent's conviction, use of forged document, entry as a bad character in police register, and continued practice as an advocate. This led to D.C. Case No. 40 of 1983, in which the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P., by order dated March 25, 1984, debarred the respondent from practice for three years. Both the respondent and the appellant filed appeals to the Bar Council of India (D.C. Appeal No. 17 of 1984 and D.C. Appeal No. 17A of 1984 respectively). The Bar Council of India, by order dated September 8, 1985, allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the appellant's appeal, relying on its earlier order dated June 8, 1984 in D.C. Appeal No. 4 of 1982. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Bar Council of India failed to appreciate that the earlier order had given benefit of doubt only regarding the forged document and had not considered the respondent's conviction under Section 307 IPC and entry in bad character register. The appellant's counsel, Shri Subodh Markendaya, contended that given the gravity of the misconduct, the respondent's name should be removed from the roll of advocates, and the punishment of three years debarment was too light. The judgment text available ends during the arguments, and the final decision of the Supreme Court is not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Professional Misconduct - Conviction for Criminal Offence - Section 35 Advocates Act, 1961 - Advocate convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment - Bar Council of U.P. initiated disciplinary proceedings and found gross misconduct, debarring advocate for three years - Bar Council of India later set aside that order relying on earlier benefit of doubt regarding forged document - Supreme Court heard appeal challenging that order. (Paras not mentioned) B) Professional Misconduct - Forged Document - Benefit of Doubt - Earlier Bar Council of India order dated June 8, 1984 had given benefit of doubt to advocate regarding fabrication of letter dated April 28, 1976 used to avoid arrest - Later order dated September 8, 1985 set aside Bar Council of U.P. punishment on ground that matter already considered in earlier order - Appellant argued that earlier order did not consider conviction under Section 307 IPC. (Paras not mentioned) C) Punishment - Proportionality - Removal from Roll vs Suspension - Appellant contended that gravity of misconduct (assaulting opponent with knife, conviction under Section 307 IPC, entry in bad character register) warranted removal of name from roll of advocates, not mere debarment for three years - Court was to decide appropriate punishment. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India erred in setting aside the punishment of debarment imposed by the Bar Council of U.P. on respondent No.1 and whether the conduct of respondent No.1 (conviction under Section 307 IPC, use of forged document, entry in bad character register) warranted removal of his name from the roll of advocates rather than mere suspension.
Final Decision
Not mentioned; the provided judgment text ends during the arguments and does not include the final order of the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- Advocate convicted under Section 307 IPC commits professional misconduct
- using forged document to avoid imprisonment is gross misconduct
- entry in bad character register is relevant for disciplinary action
- punishment for advocate misconduct must be commensurate with gravity of offence
- disciplinary committee can debar or remove advocate from roll under Section 35 Advocates Act
- 1961
