0704 04 Professional Ethics Case : Chandra Shekhar Soni v. Bar Council of Rajasthan
PETITIONER:
Chandra Shekhar Soni
RESPONDENT Bar Council of Rajasthan
CITATION:
AIR 1983 SC 1012, 1983 (2)
SCALE 384, (1983) 4 SCC 255
LAWS INVOLVED : Advocates Act. 1961
FACTS :
This appeal under S. 38 of
the Advocates Act. 1961 is directed against an order or the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India dated January 7, 1977 upholding the order
of the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council of Rajasthan Jodhpur
dated July 21, 1974 by which the appellant has been held guilty of professional
misconduct and suspended from practice for a period of three years under S. 35
(c) of the Act.
The complaint was tiled u/s 35 before State Bar Council
Disciplinary Committee Rajasthan for Professional Misconduct to represent
conflicting interest except by express concerned given by all concerned after
the full disclosure of the fact. The Advocate would not have peared for other
side except with the permission of Learned Magistrate. It is paramount duty of
the Advocate to the client and where he finds that there is conflict of
interests, he should reframed from doing anything which Would harm any interest
of his client. In this case the Advocate had procured the brief of the
complaint in another case on a fee of Rs 300/- on the representation that he
would secured a favourable report for the radiologist showing that there was a fracture
of the skull.
It appears that the
complainant Bhaniya and his wife Smt. Galki were assaulted as a result of which
they received head injuries. Both of them were examined by Dr. Raman Varma and
he referred them to a Radiologist. Dr. Mangal Sharma. Radiologist sent a report
to the Station House Officer that he found nothing abnormal in the X-ray plate
of the complainant Bhaniya but from the X-ray Plate of Smt. Galki he suspected
a fracture of the skull and suggested that he should refer the matter to a Specialist.
The appellant approached the complainant with the X-ray plates taken by Dr.
Sharma and promised to get a favourable report he was engaged as a counsel and
said that Rs. 300 had to be paid to Dr. Shama . Chander Shekhar
Soni. Dr. Mangàl Sharma sent another's letter to the Station House Officer
saying There is evidence of fracture of the skull.
lt is not in controversy
that the appellant wrote the letter but he put forward a false plea which he
has failed to the had substantiate. He pleaded the sent the letter to one Dr.
Surinder Singh Lodha.
Homeopath and Editor of a
newspaper Jan Prahari for publication of an advertisement. He tried to
substantiate his plea by examining Dr Surinder Singh Lodha and me Mahipal Kumar
through whom he is supposed to have sent the letter. The appellant in his
statement' stated when confronted with the letter that the words I am sending
the man to you with X-ray plate relate to the X-ray plate sent by him to Dr.
Lodha: the words Y our amount is lying with me relate to Rs. 20 given to
Mahipal for being handed over to Dr. Lodha for the printing of the
advertisement and the words Please do his work and it should be done positively
in his favour relate to the publication of the advertisement as desired by
Mahipal. The defence plea was that Dr. Lodha had taken the X-ray plate of one
of his relations who was suffering from tuberculosis. The Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of India has upon held the finding of the State
Bar Council disbelieving the defence version. The explanation of Mahipal is
that he had lost the letter. On the contrary the version of the complainant is
that he had taken the letter to Dr. Sharma who after reading it returned the
same to him. The fact remains that the incriminating letter has been produced
by the complainant. This completely falsifies the plea taken by the appellant
in his defence that the letter was meant for publication of an advertisement in
the newspaper. Admittedly, no such advertisement was ever published.
ISSUES:
Whether the Appellant Advocate has committed Professional Misconduct for
not
following the norms of
professional ethic?
Decision of the
Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council
The Preamble to Chapter II
Part VI of the Rules lays down that an advocate shall at all times comport
himself in a manner befitting his status as an officer of the Court. privileged
member of the community and a gentleman. R. 4 of this Chapter provides that an
advocate shall use his best effort to restrain and prevent his client from
resorting to sham and unfair practices etc. There is a long catena of decisions
laying down that offering of bribe or giving bribe or taking money from the
client for the purpose of giving bribe amounts grave professional misconduct.
The Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council held that the evidence
on record clearly shows that the appellant had taken money to pay and bribe to
the Radiologist. In a case of such grave professional misconduct, the State Bar
Council observes that such practices adopted by the members of the bar bring
the whole legal Profession into disrepute and accordingly directed that the
appellant be suspended from practice, fora
period of three years.
DECISION OF BAR COUNCIL OF
INDIA
The Disciplinary Committee
of Bar Council of India has upheld the sentence saying that the penalty imposed
does not appear to be excessive and rejected the plea of mercy observing: It is
true that the appellant was mere junior at the bar and not much experienced
when the incident is said to have taken place. The temptation for money at that
stage is of course very great but at the same time it is to be realised by the
appellant that he belongs to a noble profession which has very high traditions and
those traditions are not sullied by malpractices of this nature.
DECISION OF SUPREME COURT
Aggrieved by the order of
the Bar Council of India Appellant file this appeal u/s 38 of The
Advocate Act, 1961. Supreme
Court reduced the period of suspension from 3 years to 1 year and modified the
order. Supreme Court took a view that punishment of suspension from practice
for a period of 3 years to a junior member of the Bar like the Appellant is
rather severe. The lapse on the part of the appellant was perhaps since in the
struggle for existence he had to resort to such mal practices. Supreme Court
strongly deprecate the conduct of the appellant but take a lenient View because
he was an inexperienced member of bar and the fact that the incidents took
place in 1971. In all facts and circumstances of the case, Supreme Court feel
it would meet the ends of justice if Supreme Court reduce the period of
suspension from three years to one year The order of Supreme Court is fully
justified on taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.
The leniency showed by Supreme Court towards the junior Advocate who was
inexperience member of the Bar is proper.
ChandraShekhar Soni v.Bar Counci of Rajasthan (1983) - YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment