LexBAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus B. NARAYAN SWAMY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 9
BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
B. NARAYAN SWAMY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA AND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.)
Advocates Act, 1961 - s.35 - Professional misconduct
A
B
- Complaint against Notary !Advocate alleging possession
C
of attested blank stamp papers - State Bar Council held him
responsible for violation of Notaries Act and s. 35 of Advocates
Act and awarded punishment of debarring him from practicing
once for all - Bar Council of India set aside the punishment
- On appeal, held : The alleged conduct of the advocate
D
attracts the provisions of Advocates Act - However, the
punishment is not commensurate with the degree of offence
- Hence the punishment of debar from practice is modified
to one year three months - Notaries Act, 1952.
Noratanmal Chouraria v. M.R. Murli and Another 2004
E
(1) Suppl. SCR266: (2004) 5 SCC 689; Narain Pandey v.
Pannalal Pandey 2012 (11) SCR752 : (2013) 11 SCC 435 -
relied on.
Case Law Reference:
Suppl. SCR 266
2012 (11) SCR 752
relied on
relied on
Para 5
Para 9
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
G
7133 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order date 17.03.2012 of the
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.
9
H
"
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 11 S.C.R.
A Appeal No. 31 of 2010.
P. Vishwanatha Shetty, B. Ramana Murthy, Sumanth
Nookala for the Appellant.
Annam D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain, Sudipto Sircar, Vaishali
B R., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA J. 1. Delay
C condoned.
1.1. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is the appellant.
Challenge is to the order dated 17th March, 2012 passed bys
the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C.
Appeal No. 31 of 2010 in and by which the Bar Council of India
D set aside the order of punishment of the appellant dated 5th
December, 2009, imposed on respondent No.1 herein who is
a practising Advocate in the State of Andhra Pradesh for
certain alleged misconduct.
E
2. The appellant passed its order against the respondent
No. 1 on 5th December, 2009 in Complaint Case No. 34 of
2008 holding that the first respondent committed the
misconduct of violating the terms and conditions of his
appointment as Notary in attesting' the documents and misused
F his position as a Notary and failed to follow the provisions of
the Notaries Act and the Indian Stamp Act. Reliance was
placed upon Exhibits C3 to C6 and D1 to D2 in support of its
conclusion about the guilt of respondent No. 1. As a matter of
fact, the above documents C1 to C2, photocopy of which are
placed before us discloses that respondent No. 1 had attested
G blank stamp papers of the value of Rs. 10/- and Rs.20/- of three
different dates namely, 8th March, 2007, 16th August, 2007 and
27th October, 2007 by affixing the seal of Notary and as an
Advocate. The above documents were stated to have been
forwarded to the appellant by the Registrar General of the High
H
•
•
BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. B. NARAYAN
11
SWAMY [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
Court based on a complaint made by one, Ramchandra Rao,
A
a graduate and a private employee in Hyderabad who brought
to the notice of the High Court about the professional
misconduct of respondent No. 1 herein.
3. In its de.tailed order dated 5th December, 2009 .tpe
appellant held that the conduct of the first respondent in having
abused his position as a Notary by attesting blank stamp
papers and by affixing signature along with the rubber stamp
impression were in violation of the provisions of the Notaries
B
Act in particular Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Though
respondent No. 1 contended that his role as a Notary is different
C
from his status as an Ad'{ocate, the said stand of respondent
No. 1 was rightly rejected by the appellant.
4. Unfortunately, by the impugned order, the Bar Council
of India without appreciating the legal position under the
Notaries Act as well as the Advocates Act, in a superficial
manner, proceeded to hold that violation of the provisions of
the Stamp Act and Notaries Act will have no impact on the
conduct of respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis his status as an
Advocate. What was omitted to be noted by the Bar Council
of India was that the very recognition of the respondent No. 1
as a Notary under the provisions of the NotariExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.