P. J. RATNAM versus D. KANIKARAM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 10-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

,., • 
THE SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
P. J. RATNAM 
v. 
D. KANIKARAM AND OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA a. J., ]. c. SHAH and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Professional miscmuluct-Complaint--Bnquiry--Advowte 
U!i•appropriating clitnt's money-If yuilty of 
profeBPional 
miaconduct-Proceeding in respect of professional miscaruluct 
and prnceeding in a criminal Court-Object af-Difjerentiation-
P·unishmtnt-,-Legal Practiti•nere Act, 187.? (18 of 1879), ss. 12, 
13-Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (3~ of 1926), s. 10 (2). 
The respondents and one other Kagga Veeraiah, were 
plaintiffs in a suit for possession of certain lands and the 
appellant was their Advocate. The suit was di•missed and 
an appeal was preferred therefrom to the Subordinate Judge. 
Pending the disposal of the appeal, the court directd the sale 
proceeds of the standing crops on the suit land to he deposited 
into court, and a sum of Rs. J ,600/- was so deposited. The 
plaintiff's appeal was allowed and the defendants preferred 
a second appeal to the High Court. Pending disposal of the 
second appeal, plaintiff's application for 
withdrawing the 
amount was allowed by the court on 
furnishing security of 
immovable property. A cheque petition was filed which was 
allowed and thereafter a cheque for 
Rs. l,452/4/- was issued 
in favour of the appellant. The appellant an 
Advocate 
admitted that he had received and had cashed the cheque on 
behalf of his clients who were 
entitled to be paid this sum. 
The second appeal was allowed by the High Court and the 
plaintiff's suit was dismissed, as a result of which the plain-
tiffs had to refund the sum of the defendants in the suit. 
The plaintiffs made a written demand on the appellant for the 
proceeds of the cheque that had been cashed by him and not 
paid over to them. The appellant in reply claimed to have 
paid over the sum to them on their passing a receipt which 
happened to be in the bundle of case-pap"rs returned to 
1963 
April JO. 
' 
1963 
P. J. Rolo•m 
v. 
D. T.aailat.,,. 
2 
SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS [1964] V0]}.~ 
them. The respondents filed 
a complaint under ss. 12 aad 
13 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The explanation of tlte 
Advocate was called for and the District Judge was directed te 
bold an enquiry and forward his report to the High· Court. 
His report was that the appellant's ca•e was not unbelievable 
and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The matter was 
heard by a Bench of three Judges of the High Court, who acid 
him guilty of professional misconduct and suspended him for 
five years from practice. In this Court the 
appellant 
contended, (I) that the Bar Council had not been consulted 
before the case was referred to the learned District Judge for 
inquiry and report and this vitiated the legality of the entire 
proceedings against the appellant. 
(?.) That the complaint 
filed by the resµondents on the basis of which action was 
taken against the appellant was not shown to have been signed 
by them, nor properly verified by them as required by the rules 
of the High Court. (3) That as in substance the charge 
against the appellant 
was misappropriation 
of moneys 
belonging to the clients, the High Court should have left the 
complainants to their remedy of prosecuting the appellant and 
should not have proceeded to deal with him under s. IO of 
the Bar Councils Act. 
(4) That there was a procedural 
irregularity in the mode in which the case against the appellant 
was conducted. (5) That one of the plaintiffs-Kagga Veeraiah 
had himself admitted in his evidence that he and others had 
received the proceeds of the cheque which the appellant had 
cashed and that in the face of this admission the High Court 
was clearly wrong in finding that the appellant had failed to 
pay over the money to his clients. 
Held 
(I) that the fact that in the order of reference of 
the proceedings under s. 10(2) of the Bar Councils Act, to the 
District Judge, there is no explicit statement that the liar 
Council had previously been consulted, is not decisive on the· 
point. There would be a presumption of regularity in respect 
of official and judicial acts and it would be for the party who 
challenges such regularity to plead and prove his case. Since, 
this objection was not raised in the High Court, even wheu the 
appellant applied for a certificate, this Court will not entertain 
this objection which rests wholly upon a question of fact. 
· 
(2) The complaint petition had been signed by the 
respondents a

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