PRAHLAD SARAN GUPTA versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 499 · Decided: 26-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
PRAHLAD SARAN GUPTA 
A 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 26, 1997 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Advocates Act, 1961-Section 35-Professional misconduct alleged 
against the appellant Advocate, a Standing counsel for Railways having 
drafted a notice against Railway-Draft notice not sent to handwriting expert 
for opinion despite request-Conclusion about draft being in handwriting of C 
delinquent Advocate reached by Disciplinary Committee solely on the basis 
of its own comparison of handwriting-Held : Not proper-Since charge of 
professional misconduct is quasi-Criminal it requires proof beyond 
reasonable doubt-Allegation of handing over a letter to the judgment debtor 
addressed to another advocate of the High Court to help him in obtaining D 
stay of execution proceeding~Explanation of appellant that the disputed letter 
was not given to the judgment debtor but to some other person for some other 
case-Rejection of the explanation on the basis of photostat copy of affidavit 
filed by the other person without giving opportunity of cross-examining 
deponent-Held: Not proper-Finding of professional misconduct can not be E 
based on photostate copy of the affidavit of the deponent who was neither 
examined as a witness by the complainant-Nor cross examined by the ap-
pellant-Wrongful retention of amount deposited with the appellant in con-
nection with settlement of execution proceeding~Settlement not fructifying--
Appellant yet retaining money-Held : Appellant guilty of professional mis-
conduct-Penalty of reprimand imposed. 
F 
The appellant was engaged by the decree holder, the complainant, in 
an execution proceedings. He filed a complaint of professional misconduct 
against the appellant with U.P. State Bar Council interalia alleging that he 
deliberately handled his case with utter carelessness in collusion with the 
judgment-debtor. The appellant had wrongfully retained an amount G 
deposited with him in connection with the settlement of the execution 
proceedings and inspite of his repeated demands he did not pay him the 
money and deposited the same after a long time to the court i.n order to 
harass hihl. He received fees from the judgment-debtor to engage a lawyer 
on his behalf in the High Court and wrote a letter to the Advocate of the H 
499 
500 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court to get a stay of the execution proceedings. Besides, while acting 
as his counsel, he filed Title suit in a wrong court with utter carelessness. 
The.appellant was also alleged to have indulged in money-lending business. 
B 
. As the Disciplinary Committee could not complete the proceedings within 
the period, the same were transferred to the Bar Council of India. The Bar 
Council rejected all other allegations against the appellant but found him 
guilty of professional misconduct for wrongfully retaining the amount 
deposited with him in connection with the settlement of the execution 
proceedings and also writing a letter to the advocate of the High Court 
asking him to help the judgment debtor in obtaining stay of the Execution 
proceedings. The Disciplinary Committee also found him guilty for draft-
C ing a notice against the Railways on behalf of a private party while he was 
a standing counsel for the Railways However, this allegation was not there 
in the original complaint filed initially by the complianant. The Discipli-
nary Committee of the Bar Coundl of India imposed the punishment of 
suspension from practice for a period of one year ho\ding the appellant 
D guilty of serious professional misconduct. Being aggrieved, the appellant 
filed the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court 
E 
HELD : 1. The Disciplinary committee was in error in holding the 
appellant guilty of professional misconduct for drafting the notice under 
section 80 CPC, that was served on the Union of India on behalf of M/s. 
Aganval Traders on the ground that document No. 16, the draft of the said 
notice, was in the hand writing of the appellant. The Disciplinary Commit· 
tee had arrived at this conclusion by a comparison of the handwriting of 
F 
the appellant with the handwriting in document No.16. It was not advisable 
for the Disciplinary committee to base its conclusion purely on the basis of 
its own comparison of the handwriting, specially when the matter related 
to a charge of professional misconduct which is quasi-criminal in nature 
requiring proof beyond reasonable dou

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