L.C. GOYAL versus MRS. SURESH JOSHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 1018 · Decided: 12-03-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
L.C. GOYAL 
v. 
MRS. SURESH JOSHI AND ORS. 
MARCH 12, 1999 
[DR. AS. ANAND CT. AND V.N. KHARE, J.) 
Advocates Act, 1961-Section 18-Appeal against order passed by Bar 
Council of India-Amount deposited towards court fee misappropriated by 
C Advocate-Cheque issued to refund amount to client dishonoured for insuf-
ficient funds-Advocate denied signature on the cheque--i.icence to practice 
suspended for 5 years as professional misconduct proved-On appeal Held, 
legal profession is known as a noble profession having high traditions and if 
a member of the profession falls from such standards, he deserves punishment 
commensurate with gravity of the misconduct-Opinion of a handwriting ex-
D pert was not needed for finding out the genuineness of the signature in view 
of the patent circumstantial evidence-No inteiference needed in the order but 
on undertaking that the Advocate would conf onn to standards of the profes-
sion, period of suspension reduced to two- and-a-half years subject to refund 
of the amount with interest-Costs of appeal in addition to the costs awarded 
E by the Bar Council to be deposited-Directions issued. 
Appellant, a practicing Advocate, received Rs. 25,102 towards court 
fees in addition to certain other amounts for filing a snit before High 
Court. Respondent having come to know that the said amount had been 
misappropriated and no steps had been taken in her case. On being so told 
F by the respondent the appellant issued a cheque for Rs. 38,000 favouring 
the employees union represented by the respondent, in order to refund the 
court fees with interest. This cheque was dishonoured twice for insufficient 
funds. On a complaint, the Bar Council of India, after examining the 
respondent and various exhibits produced found the appellant guilty of 
G professional misconduct. His licence to practice was suspended for a period 
of five years. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant contended before this court that when signatures on 
the receipts and the cheque had been denied by him it became incumbent 
upon the Bar Council of India to seek opinion of a handwriting expert; and 
H that the said court fees had never been paid to him. 
1018 
r-
L.C. GOYAL v. SURESHJOSHI 
1019 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The legal profession is known as a noble profession having 
high traditions and has been catering to the need of the society for very 
long time past. Thus the membe.-s of this profession are expected to uphold 
those traditions and serve the society with sincerity and honesty. If such 
are the expectations from a noble profession, its members must conduct 
themselves, which may be worthy of emulation. By doing any act which is 
contrary to the accepted norms and standards of this profession, a mem-
ber of the profession not only discredits himself, but also brings disrepute 
to the profession to which he belongs. By such acts the credibility and 
reputation of the profession as a whole comes under cloud. If any member 
of the profession falls from such standards, he deserves punishment 
commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. [1026-C-D] 
A 
B 
c 
2.1. Professional misconduct is established by the circumstances that 
valuation of the suit originally filed was purposely kept vague which was D 
subsequently amended without the knowledge of the respondent; that the 
cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds; that the respondent was 
not the beneficiary of the cheque, therefore there was no reason to forge 
the signature; that no reply was given to the notices sent by the respondent; 
that no FIR was lodged with regard to theft of the cheque book, and that 
there was a striking similarity between the appellant's admitted signature 
and the one on the cheque. [1022-D; 1024-A] 
2.2. Circumstances established in the present case speak for them-
selves and candidly point towards the misconduct committed by the appel-
lant. When the established circumstantial evidence is so patent that it 
leads to only one conclusion that the signature was not forged and thus 
there was no need for an opinion of a handwriting expert for finding out 
the genuineness of the signature. [1025-G] 
E 
F 
3. Since the appellant's counsel undertook on behalf of the appellant 
to the effect that the appellant would conform to standards of the legal G 
profession the order suspending his licence to practice for a period of five 
years is modified by reducing it to two and a half years, pnivided interest 
on 

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