LexO. N. MAHINDROO versus DISTT. JUDGE, DELHI &.ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
0. N. MAHINOR.00
"
..
v.
;.
DISTT. JUDGE, DELHI &.ANR.
September 4, 1970
I\
[M .. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., G. K. M!Ti\"ER AND A. N. RilY, J{J
D
- -
E
F
G
H
Advocates Art -1961, ss.'44 and L0(3)-Rcvlew-Bal' Co1111cil ct11111ot
rttvlr'~V '1ccz.s1un
of Disciplinary
Conimittee-Disciplinar.v
Coounittee's-
.PVWl!r of re-v1e11·-Grpunds for rt\•lew need not be sbnUar vr c.·nalogous
lo t/u;ie found in s. 'l 14 or 0.47 R. I of Code. of CMI Prucedure-
l'tinciples of antre .. fois cop.vict1 or antre 'fois acquit also not applicahle
·-:--Review petition 11111st ·b'e1 dealt'. with objectively-Revie\I/ by Supreme
Court, considerations fqr-Appeal to Sttprenie Court under s. 38 Advoc!ltes
Act, Scope of-Pr.ofe'ssional. n1isco11ducr~Proof" of.
f.
The appellant \Vas an, advocate of this Court. A complaint y.•as made
by !he District Judge Delhi against him on 29th February, 1964 to the
Bar Council of the State of Delhi alleging that he had mutilated a UOcu-
ment, by tearing two pieces:from it while examining a judicial record in
the·'couf.t.i.room in the presehce of the junior clerk.
The Bar Council of
the State of Delhi referred the matte1 to its Disc:iplinary Committee.
The. cxpl~n~tiop of the appellant before the Disciplinary Committ~e was
th1t the charge had Deen falsely made against him bec'lusc of the hostility
of the Judges and the staff of the DistriCr Cpurt, bclhi.
He denied that.
the docun1ent w:\s important or that he
mutilated it.
He hsked for
~'iummoning the torn rloc~1n;ient and the pieces but only the document was
received. ·According r.:> the Dist'rict Judge the pieces were misplaced and
could n,at be found.
The Disciplinary Committee held the app:lla11t guilty
of having J11Ulila ted ,.the document on the basis 9f it he oral evidence 9f
the junior derk .. The appellant. thereupon, appeal~d to the Bar Council of
India but the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dis·
.mi!~ed the appeal.
His appeal to this Co1J.rl under s. 38 of the Advocates
Act was also dismissea at the preliminary' hearing.
The appellant filed
a reyiew petition befprc the· 'G>isciplina'ry Committee of. the Bar Council
of India' hut it was rcjecteu.
The •RPellant· then flle9'. a writ petition in
the High Court of Punjab (Delhi Bench) challenging·'· 38 of ihe Advo-
cutc.s Act and r. 7 and Or. S of tlie rules of 'this Court as ultra vires
Art. 138('.?J of the Constitutibn.
The writ petition was admitted and u
rule nlsi wns issued.
Meanwhile -this .Court in dealing Witl-i a r1Jview
petition filed tiy the •!l'pellant had .issued a notice to· the District Judge
tu find out the tornipieces.
The' District Judge reported that the muti· .1
lntcd document was a copy of the lawyer's notice and that onlv a small
piec:c of half .nch was missing from !h~ .bottom of the second page, The
picct-s were not traceable.
l-Je allo reported. that the junior clerk was
not surC' that any. thing was written on the torn pieces but accordin~ to
his :recollection the words ··tru~ copy' followed by the signature 'Vir Bhan'
·1.vcrc' written.
This Cburt dismiss:::dt the review petition on· September,
:!6~ I 966.
The writ' petition in the High Court was also dismissed by 3
single Judge on October 12 1966.
In the proceedings it app~ared t~at
the docurn,ent in question ha('!· not been relied upon by the p:.irtv wti.1ch
had fileti 11.
A letters patent appeal was filed against Singl.e Jud~e·s .iudg-
nlcnt and order.
Before the Division Bench the validity of s. 38 of the
Advocates Act alcine was cballenged~-
The Divisioh Bench dismissed the
:.ppcal hut ;granted a
cer'tificate'~
The appeal filed in this Court as a
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971]2 S.C.R.
result was dismissed by the Constitution Bench on January 8, 1968. The
lprcllant then tried a fresh reviev.,, petition on the basis of fresh evidence
tnd report of the Dislrict Judge.
On the court observing that on the
basis of ne\v m.nerial review should be asked for fron1 the Bar Council
of Jndia, the appellant withdrew the rcvic\\' petition which ,1,.·as not dis-
missed on merits.
'fhe appellant then \\.'t:nt before the Bar Council ask-
ing for reconsideration of the case under ss. 44 and 10(3) of the Advo-
cates Act. 1961.
The Bar Council of India held that it had no jurisdic-
tion to reopen the matter but reco,mmended that the Disciplinary Com-
nuttee may be approached.
The appellant then applied for review of the
order by the DisciplinarExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.