N.G. DASTANE versus SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442 · Decided: 03-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

·:-1 
A 
N.G. DASTANE 
v. 
--1__. 
SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE AND ANR. 
• 'I:-
.. _,. 
MAY 3, 2001 
B 
[K.T. THOMAS, R.P. SETHI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
I-
S. 35(i)-Advocates-"Professional or other misconduct"-Cross-
c examination of witness-Adjournments sought repeatedly though witness 
present in the Court on all the dates-No alternative arrangement for 
examination of witnesses made-Held, amounts to misconduct-Advocate is 
duty bound to see that witnesses present in the Court were examined-Any 
misdemeanour or misdeed or misbehaviour interfering with the administration 
D of justice, amounts to misconduct-Tactics of filibuster is also professional 
misconduct. 
Power and Duty of State Bar Council-Advocate-"Professional or 
y 
other misconduct"-Held, if Bar Council comes across any instance of 
misconduct which is genuine and not actuated with the sole purpose of 
E harassing the advocate, it is duty bound to forward the complaint to the 
Disciplinary Committee. 
.. 
Witness-Examination of-Counsel for accused avoiding cross 
examination and seeking repeated adjournments on flimsy grounds-Held, 
Court should not accede to such tactics. 
F 
Words and Phrases : 
"Professional or other misconduct"-Meaning of in the context of 
.... 
S.35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. 
G 
In a complaint filed by the appellant for the offence of theft of electricity, 
respondent-Advocates were engaged by the accused. After examination-in-
chief, the case was posted for cross-examination of appellant hlstead of cross-
examining the appellant, the respondents went on seeking adjournments on 
>-->·-
one or tht other pretext and every time the Court yielded to their request. 
H 
On one of such occasion i·espondent No. 1 sought adjournment on the ground 
442 
+ 
...... 
N.G. DASTANE v. SHRIKANT S. SHIVDE 
443 
that he was unable to speak on account Of throat infection. However, he was A 
seen forcefully and fluently arguing a matter before another court situated 
in the same building. Appellant lodged a complaint before State Bar Council 
for taking disciplinary action against the respondents, which was dismissed 
on the ground that no prima facie case was made out Thereafter, appellant 
unsucessfully filed a revision petition before the Bar Council of India. Against B 
the orders of State 'Bar Council and Bar Council of India, appellant has 
preferred the present appeal. During the hearing of the case, the Court felt 
that apart from the question of professional misconduct of the respondents, 
the Judicial Magistrate, who yielded to all the procrastinative tactics, should 
be made answerable to the High Court so that action could be taken against 
the Magistrate on the administrative side for such serious laches. Therefore C 
show cause notice was issued upon the Magistrate. However, since the said 
Judicial Magistrate explained that she was new to the service and had started 
working at the relevant time as a regular Magistrate after completing the 
training, the Court refrained from recommending any disciplinary action 
against her. 
D 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Appellant-complaiHant has made out a very strongprima 
facie case for the disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council to proceed 
with. However, the State Bar Council has abdicated its duties by holding that 
there was no primafacie case for the Disciplinary Committee to take up. E 
The Bar Council of India also went 'Yoefully wrong in holding that there was 
no case for revision at all. (451-G] 
2.1. Seeking adjournments for postponing the examination of witnesses 
who are present in court even without making other arrangements for 
examining such witnesses is dereliction of advocate's duty to the Court as F 
that would cause much harassment and hardship to the witnesses. Such 
dereliction if repeated wculd amount to misconduct of the advocate concerned. 
Legal profession must be purified from such abuses of the Court procedures. 
Tactics of filibuster, if adopted by an advocate, is also professional misconduct 
(450-FJ G 
2.2. Advocate abusing the process of court is guilty of misconduct. 
When witnesses are present in Court for examination, the advocate concerned 
has a duty to see that their examination is conducted. Witnesses come to the 
Court, on being called by the Court, do so as they have no other option, and 
such witnesses are also responsible citizens who
0have other work to attend H 
444 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A for e

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