IN THE MATTER OF AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT. • versus .

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 1006 · Decided: 23-11-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BIJAN KUMAR MUKHERJEA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

1955 
CorPcration of 
Calcutta 
v. 
Mule hand 
Agarwal/a 
Venkatarama 
Ayyar J. 
1955 
November 23. 
1006 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
were it not that the appellant desired that the deci-
sion of this Court should be obtained on certain ques-
tions of importance, and 
that purpose has 
been 
achieved. On a consideration of all the circumstances, 
we do not think that this is a fit case in which we 
should pass an order for demolition. We should, how-
ever, add that we find no justification for the stric-
tures passed on the appellant by the court below. 
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 
IN THE MATTER OF 
D AN ADVOCATE OF THE SUPREME COURT. • 
[B. K. MuKHERJEA, C. J., S. R. DAs and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.) 
Bar Councils Act-Misconduct in capacity other than professional 
-Jurisdiction of Court-Bar 
Councils 
Act (XXXVIII of 1926), 
s. JO-Supreme Court Rules, Order IV, Rule 30. 
Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act confers on the Court juris~ 
diction to take disciplinary_ action against an Advocate not merely 
for professional misconduct but any other misconduct committed in 
any other capacity as well and leaves it to the Court's discretion to 
t2ke such action as it thinks fit in any suitable case. 
< 
The Advocate-General of Bombay v. Three Advocates ([1934] 
I.LR. 59 Born. 57), In the matter of an Advocate ([1936] I.L.R. 63 
Cal. 867) and In re a Pleader (I.L.R. [1943] Mad. 595), referred to. 
In re Thomas fames Wallace ([1866] L.R. I P.C. 283), and In 
re an Advocate of Benares (A.LR. [1932] All. 492), held inapplicable. 
Consequently, in a case where an Advocate figuring as an ac-
cused in a case under the Bombay Prohibiti9n 
Act was persistently 
rud!! to and contemptuous of the trial Magistrate and did all in his 
po\ver to hold up the trial and bring the administration of justice 
into 
contempt, 
he 
~'<ls guilty of misconduct 
and as such was 
liable to be suspended from practice. 
D in person 
M. 
C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, as 
amicus curiae. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
1007 
1955. 
November 
23. 
The 
Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
DAs J.-This Rule was issued by this Court under 
Order IV, rule 30 of the Rules 
of this Court after 
receipt of a report from the Bombay High Court that 
that High Court had, by its order made on the 13th 
October 1955 in Civil Application No. 1506 of 1955, 
suspended the respondent from practice as an Advo-
cate of that High Court for a period of one year from 
th~ date of the said order. By the rule the respon-
dent has been required to show cause why, in view of 
the matter specified in the judgment and order of the 
Bombay 
High Court referred to above, 
appropriate 
action, disciplinary or otherwise, should not be taken 
against him by this Court. 
The respondent is an Advocate of some standing 
in the 
Bombay High Court and as such was also 
enrolled as an Advocate of this Court. It appears that 
in the earlier part of the year 1953 the Advocate was 
prosecuted before 
Mr. Sonavane, one 
of the Presi-
dency Magistrates at Bombay, on a charge of having 
committed an offence under 
the 
Bombay Prohibition 
Act. The trial lasted from July 
1953 to November 
1953. On the 18th November 1953 the Magistrate con-
victed the Advocate of the offence with which he was 
charged and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment 
for one month and to a fine of Rs. 201 and to rigorous 
imprisonment of four weeks in default of payment of 
the fine. The Advocate went up on appeal to the 
High Court. The High Court on the 24th February 
1954 
upheld the conviction but altered 
the 
sentence 
to one of fine of Rs. 1,000 only. 
In the meantime, on the 25th November 1953, the 
trial Magistt:ate, 
Mr. Sonavane, 
made a report to the 
Registrar (Appellate Side) of the Bombay High Court 
as to the conduct of the Advocate · who appeared in 
person as the accused before him. On a perusal of that 
report the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the 
Bombay 
High Court constituted a Tribunal consisting of three 
members of the Bar Council to enquire into the con-
duct of . the Advocate. The Tribunal issued a summons 
1955 
In the mslur of 
D an Atlvocau of 
the Supreme Courl 
1955 
In th~ mattl of 
D an Advocate of 
tM Suprem1 Court 
Das]. 
1008 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
against the Advocate intimating that it would enquire 
into his conduct as disclosed in :-
(a) the report · dated the 25th November 1953 of 
Shri T. 
A. 
Sonavane, 
B.A., 
LL.B., 
Presidency 
Magistrat

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.