LexHIKMAT ALI KHAN versus ISHWAR PRASAD ARYA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B HIKMAT ALI KHAN v. ISHWAR PRASAD ARYA AND ORS. JANUARY 28, 1997 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] Advocates Act, 1961: Sections 35(3)(b), (c) & (d) and 24-A-Punish- ment-Adequacy of-Test-detennination of-Advocate convicted under S.307 !PC for assaulting his opponent in courtroom with a knife-State Bar C Council suspended said Advocate from practice for three years-Held: proper punishment was removal of said advocate from roll of advocates-Not mere suspension from practice for a certain period-Conviction was for an offence involving moral twpitude-State Bar Council failed to take note of gravity of misconduct committed by said advocate. D The respondent, a practising advocate, was convicted of an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for assaulting his opponent in the courtroom with a knife. On the basis of a complaint by the appellant, the State Bar Council suspended the respondent from practice for a period of three years under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, E 1961. The appellant filed an appeal before the Bar Council of India for removal of the name of the respondent from the roll of advocates, which was dismissed Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal this Court p HELD : 1. In view of the provisions of Sections 35(3)(b), (c) & (d) and 24-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 the conduct involving conviction of an offence involving moral turpitude which would disqualify a person from being enrolled as an advocate has to be considered a serious misconduct when found to have been committed by a person who is enrolled as an advocate and it would call for the imposition of the punishment of removal G of the name of the advocate from the roll of advocates. In the instant case, the respondent has been convicted of the offence of attempting to commit murder punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He had assaulted his opponent in the courtroom with a knife. The gravity of the misconduct committed\ by him is such as to show that he is unworthy H of remaining in the profession. The said misconduct, therefore, called for 632 1 ' HA KHAN v. l.P.ARYA[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 633 the imposition of the punishment of removal of the name of the respondent A ._ from the State roll of advocates and the State Bar Council, in passing the punishment of debarring the respondent from practising for a period of three years, has failed to take note of gravity of the misconduct committed by the respondent. [639-H, 640-A-D] 1 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4240 of B 1986. > Frolll the. Judglllent and Order dated 8.9.85 of the Disciplinary CoIIllilittee of the Bar Council of India, in D.C.A. Nos. 17 and 17-A of 1981. c Subodh Markandeya, Ms. Chitra Markandeya, Ajay Singh and Ms. Meenakshi Aggarwal for the Appellant. H.K. Puri (Pralllod Swarup) (NP) for the Respondents. The J udglllent of the Court was delivered by D -' S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Ishwar Prasad Arya, respondent No. 1, was registered as an advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and was practising at Badaun. An incident took place on May 18, 1971 during lunch interval at about 1.55 p.m. in which respondent No. 1 assaulted his op- E ponent Radhey Shya!Il in the court room of Munsif/Magistrate, Bisauli at Badaun with a Knife. A pistol shot is also said to have been fired by him at the time of incident. After investigation he was prosecuted for offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arllls Act. The Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, by his judglllent dated F , _,. July 3, 1972, convicted him of the said offence and sentenced hilll to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the . offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and for a period of nine months for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. were maintained by the High Court by its judg- G ment dated September 10, 1975 in Criminal Appeal No. 1873 of 1972 but he was given the benefit of doubt regarding offence under Section25 of the ~ Arms Act and the conviction and sentence for the said offence were set aside. Before he could be arrested to undergo the punishlllent of rigorous j imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., a copy H ' ~ 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 1 S.C.R. A of letter No. Pr. VJ/Chh. Pa XXIII-2016-75-76 dated April 28, 1976 pur- porting to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.