VIKAS DESHPANDE versus BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 29-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VlKAS DESHPANDE 
v. 
BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 29, 2002 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.j 
Advocates Act, 1961; Sections 35, 36(B) & 38: 
Complaint of professional misconduct against Advocate for obtaining 
C · signature on documents/executing power of Attorney to sell the land of 
complainants on misrepresentation-Advocate promised to fight case of 
complainants without charging any fee but misappropriated the amount 
obtained in sale proceeds of land in lieu of fee-State Bar Council could not 
complete the disciplinary proceedings within prescribed time limit-Matter 
D transferred to BCl-BCI found Advocate guilty of grave professional misconduct 
and permanently debarred him from practising as Advocate. On appeal, held: . 
Since Advocate obtained power of attorney by misrepresentation in his favour 
and sold the property of the complainants and misappropriated sale proceeds 
for his fee though it was established that fees was not settled, he has committed 
E 
F 
a grave professional misconduct. 
Complainants were accused in a murder case. They could not engage 
Advocate due to poverty, and on their request, Sessions Court appointed 
Amicus-Curiae to defend them. Sessions Court awarded death penalty to 
them. Appellant-Advocate met the accused-complainants in pri.ion and 
offered to fight their case in the High Court without charging any fee and 
obtained their signatures on Vakalatnama and subsequently on some 
stamp papers and executed power of attorney, and fraudulently sold lands 
of the complainants and misappropriated the sale proceeds in lieu of fee. 
High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed death sentence. Appellant 
again· contacted them to fight their case in appeal before Supreme Court 
G but complainants declined and filed a complaint against the said Advocate 
before State Bar Council for professional misconduct by fraudulently 
executing power of attorney in his favour and misappropriating sale 
proceeds for his gain. State Bar Council referred the matter to its 
Disciplinary Committee. Since it could not complete its proceedings within 
the prescribed time limit, matter was transferred to the Bar Council of 
H 
398 
·-
VIKAS DESHPANDE v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA 
399 
India under the provisions of Advocates Act. 
On the recommendation of Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of 
India found appellant-advocate guilty of gross professional misconduct and 
permanently debarred him from practising as Advocate and also imposed 
cost. Hence this appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. With regard to the plea of appellant that he could not 
be proceeded ex-parte, it is on record that the appellant had been duly 
served notkes four times and in spite of the notices having been served 
A 
B 
on the appellant he did not choose to appear before the Disciplinary C 
Committee at any point of time. The Disciplinary Committee had no other 
option but to proceed to hear the matter ex parte. 1404-E-FJ 
1.2. The power of attorney was obtained by the appellant on 
misrepresentation. On the basis of the said power of attorney, he sold the D 
land of the <omplainants fraudulently. It is also established that fees of 
the appellant had not been settled. He was neither entitled nor justified 
in selling the land of the complainants on the basis of the alleged power 
of attorney for the recovery of his fees. The only evidence on record is 
the statement of complainant whose testimony fully establishes the charge 
of professional misconduct against the appellant. 1404-F; 405-A-BI 
E 
1.3. Appellant took advantage of the situation that the complainants 
were facing death sentence and obtained power of attorney on 
misrepresentation in his favour and sold the property of the complainants. 
Further, the appellant fraudulently appropriated the sale proceeds for his 
gain. He has committed a grave professional misconduct. 
The Court observed thus: 
F 
)Relationship between an advocate and his client is of trust and 
therefore sacred. Such acts of professional misconduct and the 
frequency with which such acts are coming to light distresses as G 
well as saddens us. Preservation of the mutual trust between the 
advocate and the client is a must otherwise the prevalent judicial 
system in the country would collapse and fail. Such acts do not 
only affect the lawyers found guilty of such acts but erode the 
confidence of the general public in the prevalent judicial system. H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
400 
SUPREME 

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