2003 PLP 1027 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD INAYAT — Complainant Versus MANZOOR AHMED DHUDRA, ADVOCATE, GUJRAT — Respondent
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1027 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab Bar Council Tribunal |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD INAYAT — Complainant Versus MANZOOR AHMED DHUDRA, ADVOCATE, GUJRAT — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1027 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1027 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1027 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD INAYAT — Complainant Versus MANZOOR AHMED DHUDRA, ADVOCATE, GUJRAT — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- MANZOOR AHMED DHUDRA, ADVOCATE, GUJRAT---Respondent
- ----Ss. 41 & 42---Professional misconduct---Complainant had alleged that Advocate had claimed himself to be a relative of the Judge before whom criminal case against complainant party was pending and demanded huge amount for procuring acquittal of all the accused and had taken that amount from the complainant deceitfully---Complainant through his complaint accompanied by affidavits had demanded the return of said amount from the Advocate and had requested for disciplinary action against him---Advocate denied the allegation as being totally false and frivolous---When case came up for hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, an offer was made by the Advocate himself that in the case complainant and his witness took Special Oath that complainant had given alleged amount to the Advocate he would be ready to pay back the same to the complainant---Complainant accepted offer of Advocate and took Special Oath accordingly, but when proceedings of Special Oath had undergone, Advocate resiled from his offer and denied to pay back amount to the complainant---Disciplinary Committee referred the complaint to the Tribunal of the Bar Council-- Complainant appeared as his own witness and produced two witnesses who stated unrebuttedly that complainant paid amount to the Advocate as illegal gratification for its onward transmission to the Judge who was seized of the criminal case in which complainant's son and nephew were the accused---Advocate was not at all within his legal or moral right to resile or back out from his offer and undertaking given before the Disciplinary Committee---Special Oath was meant to put an end to the controversy and it could not be subjected to any cross-examination-- Disputed amount was proved to have been taken by the Advocate from the complainant and defence by the Advocate did not appeal to the reason as he had taken divergent, inconsistent and incoherent defence pleas-- Complainant, in circumstances had successfully established his allegation against the Advocate- --Advocate was .guilty of professional misconduct and was ordered to be removed from legal practice---Office of the Bar Council was directed to remove the name of the Advocate from the Roll of Advocates---Complainant could seek his remedy for repayment of his amount both on civil as well as criminal side of .administration of justice.
- ARIF CHAUDHRY, MEMBER---Brief narrative of this complaint is that an undated application was submitted by the complainant to Punjab Bar Council, Lahore which was addressed to its Vice-Chairman and the same was endorsed on 27th July, 1998 and was diarized through Diary No.6594 dated 28th July 1998. Through this complaint Muhammad Inayat alleged that he alongwith his. son Nisar Ahmed and one relative Shabraiz Ahmed were involved in a case under section 302/34, P.P.C., with Police Station Kunjah as all three of them were residents of Mauza Chakrian, Tehsil and District Gujrat. The case according to the complainant was being tried by Mr. Abdus Sattar Asghar learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat in which he acquitted the complainant on 11-7-1998 whereas, other two co-accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine. The complainant alleged in this complaint that he met the respondent who was an Advocate of Gujrat and he claimed to be a relative of Mr. Abdus Sattar Asghar. He demanded Rs.4 lacs for procuring acquittal of all the accused. The complainant gave Rs. 2 lacs on 7-7-1998 and Rs.2 lass on 9-7-1998. He alleged that the said amount was given to the respondent in presence of Ghulam Muhammad son of Qasim, caste Jat Warraich, resident of Mauza Chakrian and Muhammad Anwar son of Muhammad Din, caste Jat Gill, resident of Chak Gill, Tehsil and District Gujrat. The complainant further alleged in this complaint that the said amount has been deceitfully taken by the respondent and he complained about abovesaid act of the respondent-Advocate to the Lawyers in the Bar Room of Gujrat Bar on the very next day of judgment. The complainant demanded through this complaint return of Rs.4 lacs and also requested for disciplinary action against the respondent. The complainant submitted two Affidavits dated 4-8-1998 and 5-8-1998 affirming the allegations leveled, in the complaint.
- The respondent filed a certificate on behalf of Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Pagganwala, President, Pakistan People's Party, District Gujrat to the effect that Muhammad Ashraf son of Wali Muhammad, caste Jat Warraich (deceased), resident of Chakrianwala, Tehsil and District Gujrat was an active member of Pakistan People's Party and he had rendered highly valuable services for the said party. An F.I.R. No.114/1997 dated 29-1-1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C.; a letter dated 30-6-2001 on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate, President, District Bar, Gujrat addressed to the respondent-Advocate acknowledging the donation of Rs.50,000 to Munawar Hussain, Bar Clerk by the said Advocate and a sale-deed of land by one Munir Ahmed son of Muhammad Hussain, resident of House No.1091, Street, No.6, Sector G-10/4, Islamabad. General Attorney of Iftikhar Ahmed Khan son of Sher Ahmed Khan, resident of Sarai. Khazbuza, Tehsil and District Islamabad in favour of Manzoor Hussain Dhadra son of Ch. Shah Muhammad Dhadra, Waqas Manzoor Dhadra and Usman Manzoor Dhadra son of Ch. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra and Mst. Begum Zeenat Bano wife of Ch. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra were filed by respondent in his defence.
- The case came up for hearing, before the Disciplinary Committee of Punjab Bar Council on 24-10-1998 when an offer was made by the respondent-Advocate that in case, the complainant and his witness Ghulam Muhammad take special oath and state that they have given the alleged amount to the respondent, he will be ready to pay back the same. The offer was accepted by both the complainant and witness Ghulam Muhammad, They took special oath and stated that Rs.3,70,000 were paid by them to the respondent for onward transmission to Mr. Abdus Sattar Asghar, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. However, after the proceedings of special oath had undergone, the respondent-Advocate resiled from his earlier offer and stated that he was not ready to pay a single penny to the complainant. On this the Disciplinary Committee, Punjab Bar Council referred the complaint to this Tribunal.
- The complainant appeared as his own witness and produced two witnesses Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz. They all stated that the complainant paid Rs.3,70,000 in their presence as illegal gratification for its onward transmission to Mr. Abdul Sattar Asghar who was seized of a murder case in which complainant's son and nephew were accused. During cross-examination by respondent-Advocate Muhammad Nawaz. P.W. stated that he did not make any statement before the Disciplinary Committee of Punjab Bar Council. However, he negated the suggestion that he had initially stated that he had given statement before Disciplinary Committee and now under the influence of the complainant, he was giving this statement. Both the witnesses stated that they were standing in the veranda near door of the chamber of respondent-Advocate when the money was given to him.
- The complainant was cross-examined by the respondent Advocate as he had placed on record his affidavit'. During cross- examination, the complainant admitted that he had written in the complaint that Rs.4 lacs was given as illegal gratification to the respondent for onward transmission to the Judge. He controverted the suggestion that in affidavit he. had mentioned the amount as Rs.3,70,000 and he was confronted with his affidavit Exhs. P-1 and P-2 where the amount of Rs.4 lacs had been mentioned.
- The nutshell of the above discussion is that the complainant has successfully established his allegations against the respondent. Accordingly, we hold Mr. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra, Advocate District Bar Association, Gujrat guilty of professional misconduct and remove trim from practice. The Officer of the Punjab Bar Council is directed to remove his name from the roll of the Advocates and notify all concerned including the Registrar, Lahore High Court, District Judge Gujrat and President, District Bar Association, Gujrat.
- As far the recovery of the amount alleged to have been received by the respondent/advocate and the incidental criminal liability, the petitioner may seek his remedy both on civil as well as criminal side of administration of justice.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 41 & 42
Complainant had alleged that Advocate had claimed himself to be a relative of the Judge before whom criminal case against complainant party was pending and demanded huge amount for procuring acquittal of all the accused and had taken that amount from the complainant deceitfully
Complainant through his complaint accompanied by affidavits had demanded the return of said amount from the Advocate and had requested for disciplinary action against him
Advocate denied the allegation as being totally false and frivolous
When case came up for hearing before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council, an offer was made by the Advocate himself that in the case complainant and his witness took Special Oath that complainant had given alleged amount to the Advocate he would be ready to pay back the same to the complainant
Complainant accepted offer of Advocate and took Special Oath accordingly, but when proceedings of Special Oath had undergone, Advocate resiled from his offer and denied to pay back amount to the complainant
Disciplinary Committee referred the complaint to the Tribunal of the Bar Council-- Complainant appeared as his own witness and produced two witnesses who stated unrebuttedly that complainant paid amount to the Advocate as illegal gratification for its onward transmission to the Judge who was seized of the criminal case in which complainant's son and nephew were the accused
Advocate was not at all within his legal or moral right to resile or back out from his offer and undertaking given before the Disciplinary Committee
Special Oath was meant to put an end to the controversy and it could not be subjected to any cross-examination-- Disputed amount was proved to have been taken by the Advocate from the complainant and defence by the Advocate did not appeal to the reason as he had taken divergent, inconsistent and incoherent defence pleas-- Complainant, in circumstances had successfully established his allegation against the Advocate- --Advocate was .guilty of professional misconduct and was ordered to be removed from legal practice
Office of the Bar Council was directed to remove the name of the Advocate from the Roll of Advocates
Complainant could seek his remedy for repayment of his amount both on civil as well as criminal side of .administration of justice.
Judgment & Decree
"
3. The false claim is required to be tested, on the touchstone of cross-examination through legal process with all legal formalities. "
4. I have certain legal objections on the proceedings held by the Disciplinary Committee on 24-10-1998, which was a mockery of legal process;" The respondent filed a certificate on behalf of Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Pagganwala, President, Pakistan People's Party, District Gujrat to the effect that Muhammad Ashraf son of Wali Muhammad, caste Jat Warraich (deceased), resident of Chakrianwala, Tehsil and District Gujrat was an active member of Pakistan People's Party and he had rendered highly valuable services for the said party. An F.I.R. No.114/1997 dated 29-1-1997 under section 302/34, P.P.C.; a letter dated 30-6-2001 on behalf of Ch. Muhammad Tufail, Advocate, President, District Bar, Gujrat addressed to the respondent-Advocate acknowledging the donation of Rs.50,000 to Munawar Hussain, Bar Clerk by the said Advocate and a sale-deed of land by one Munir Ahmed son of Muhammad Hussain, resident of House No.1091, Street, No.6, Sector G-10/4, Islamabad. General Attorney of Iftikhar Ahmed Khan son of Sher Ahmed Khan, resident of Sarai. Khazbuza, Tehsil and District Islamabad in favour of Manzoor Hussain Dhadra son of Ch. Shah Muhammad Dhadra, Waqas Manzoor Dhadra and Usman Manzoor Dhadra son of Ch. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra and Mst. Begum Zeenat Bano wife of Ch. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra were filed by respondent in his defence. The case came up for hearing, before the Disciplinary Committee of Punjab Bar Council on 24-10-1998 when an offer was made by the respondent-Advocate that in case, the complainant and his witness Ghulam Muhammad take special oath and state that they have given the alleged amount to the respondent, he will be ready to pay back the same. The offer was accepted by both the complainant and witness Ghulam Muhammad, They took special oath and stated that Rs.3,70,000 were paid by them to the respondent for onward transmission to Mr. Abdus Sattar Asghar, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat. However, after the proceedings of special oath had undergone, the respondent-Advocate resiled from his earlier offer and stated that he was not ready to pay a single penny to the complainant. On this the Disciplinary Committee, Punjab Bar Council referred the complaint to this Tribunal. The respondent appeared before the Tribunal on 8-5-1999 and disputed the proceedings of the Disciplinary Committee by submitting that oath was not taken in the manner in which it was suggested by the respondent and therefore, he would not accept the oath. He was also asked whether he is prepared to accept the oath of the complainant or give oath himself to which he replied in negative. The complainant appeared as his own witness and produced two witnesses Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Nawaz. They all stated that the complainant paid Rs.3,70,000 in their presence as illegal gratification for its onward transmission to Mr. Abdul Sattar Asghar who was seized of a murder case in which complainant's son and nephew were accused. During cross-examination by respondent-Advocate Muhammad Nawaz. P.W. stated that he did not make any statement before the Disciplinary Committee of Punjab Bar Council. However, he negated the suggestion that he had initially stated that he had given statement before Disciplinary Committee and now under the influence of the complainant, he was giving this statement. Both the witnesses stated that they were standing in the veranda near door of the chamber of respondent-Advocate when the money was given to him. The complainant was cross-examined by the respondent Advocate as he had placed on record his affidavit'. During cross- examination, the complainant admitted that he had written in the complaint that Rs.4 lacs was given as illegal gratification to the respondent for onward transmission to the Judge. He controverted the suggestion that in affidavit he. had mentioned the amount as Rs.3,70,000 and he was confronted with his affidavit Exhs. P-1 and P-2 where the amount of Rs.4 lacs had been mentioned. The complainant controverted the suggestion that he had leveled the allegation against the respondent at the behest of Ch. Pervaiz Elahi a local politician. On a question, he stated that he had refused to accept the cheque from respondent for refund of the disputed amount as he was not sure as to whether any money was there in the respondent's bank account. On 27-10-2001, statement of respondent was recorded and on 1-12-2001, he was cross-examined by the complainant. In his statement the respondent took the defence that he was an MNA of Pakistan People's Party and the instant complaint has been filed against him at the instigation of his political rival Ch. Pervaiz Elahi Group by whom he had been opposed on every election. He further stated that he was a counsel for the accused in Mangowal Chakrian famous murder case in which 9 persons were murdered and 20 challans were submitted in the Court. Pervaiz Elahi was supporting the complainant party and the respondent was opposing on behalf of the accused party. Pervaiz Elahi got annoyed with him on this account also and he further deposed that Ashraf deceased who was a victim in the murder case against complainant Inayat, was an active member of Pakistan People's Party and as such the respondent was supporting complainant party in that case. This also caused annoyance to the complainant and thus he filed the instant complaint against him. He took another plea that the contradiction in the statement of the complainant and P.W. before the Disciplinary Committee on 24-10-1998 and complaint regarding amount of money also contradict the claim of the complaint. We have heard both the parties and have persued the evidence on record. The alleged transacted amount in complaint was Rs.4 lacs but later on when asked by Disciplinary Committee to take special oath on; the offer of the respondent the complainant and his witness Ghulam Muhammad stated that amount of alleged illegal gratification was Rs.3,70,
000. The respondent has tried to take advantage of this contradiction but he has, failed to recollect his own conduct before the Disciplinary Committee. That it was he who had offered the complainant and his witness to take special oath and in that eventuality he had undertaken to pay back the claimed amount, it was only then that the complainant and his witness took special oath and stated that the actual amount was Rs.3,70,000 instead of Rs.4 lacs contrary to the allegation in the complaint. To our mind it goes to the credit of the complainant and C his witness that at the time of taking a special oath, they gave the, exact figure, as they did not want to state incorrectly being under the fear of "ALLAH". Moreover the respondent was not at all within his legal or; moral right to resile or back out from his offer and undertaking before the Disciplinary Committee. Discrepancy regarding amount of money of the alleged transaction would have been important for the consideration of this Tribunal if this would have been brought on record during cross examination by the respondent to the complainant and his witness. The special oath was meant to put an end to the controversy. It could not be subjected to any cross-examination and more over the disputed amount stood proved against the respondent to the extent of Rs.3,70,
000. The other defence taken by the respondent does not appeal to the reason that in a case, in which he was not a counsel for any of the parties how could it invite annoyance of the complainant culminating into filing the instant complaint. The respondent has taken divergent, inconsistent and incoherent defence pleas. He has not been able to show nexus, of the Mangowal Chakrian murder case with the present controversy and also any direct relationship of the complainant in the present complaint with the so-called political rival of the respondent Mr. Pervaiz Elahi. It is further noted that no power of attorney in the aforementioned case has been filed by the respondent. At one point during the course of arguments respondent was asked by the Tribunal whether he was willing to pay amount to the complainant on which he replied that it would open a flood gate for so many litigants who may come up to file such false complaints against him: It has also been noted by us that no suggestion whatsoever was given by the respondent to P.W. Ghulam Muhammad that he was not a witness to the alleged transaction. Moreover the contents of the said P.W.'s statement in examination-in-chief were not controverted by the respondent in his cross-examination. It may also be pointed out that complainant was not confronted with the contents of his complaint except his statement regarding amount of money which was contradicted by his statement during special oath before the Disciplinary Committee. We have also examined the written reply filed by respondent before the Disciplinary Committee, which shows that from the very outset, he wants to take advantage of illiteracy of the complainant and his ignorance about the intricacies of law. The defence pleas taken by the respondent before the Tribunal was not at all taken by him in his written reply. We cannot give much importance and credence to the pleas taken subsequent to the written reply to the contents of the complaint which of course are afterthought and superficial. Another defence plea taken by the respondent that he is a rich man, an Exh. MNA having landed property of worth millions of rupees. Also that he is philanthropist who has been so generous that he contributed Rs.50,000 to the Clerk of the District Bar Gujrat does not absolve him of the charge levelled against him. This plea is a double edged sword which in our societal set-up, goes against the wealthy and influential persons because their affluence comes through their undue influence and malpractice played upon the poor and voiceless people. That is the saga of the rampant white collar crime in Pakistan. In the instant case the conduct of the respondent itself contradicts his claim of prosperity and generosity. He did not show this conduct before the Disciplinary Committee and the Tribunal. He himself opted for special oath from the complainant and his witness, which resultantly was administered, and thereafter, he backed out from his offer to pay the sworn amount. Again he was asked by the Tribunal whether he was prepared to accept the oath of the complainant or give oath himself as to his innocence which was refused by him. As observed above, during the proceedings of the Tribunal, the respondent was again provided an opportunity to satisfy the claim of the complainant, which too was very crudely refused by him with the reiteration that it would encourage so many others, to rise up against him with such actions. The nutshell of the above discussion is that the complainant has successfully established his allegations against the respondent. Accordingly, we hold Mr. Manzoor Hussain Dhadra, Advocate District Bar Association, Gujrat guilty of professional misconduct and remove trim from practice. The Officer of the Punjab Bar Council is directed to remove his name from the roll of the Advocates and notify all concerned including the Registrar, Lahore High Court, District Judge Gujrat and President, District Bar Association, Gujrat. As far the recovery of the amount alleged to have been received by the respondent/advocate and the incidental criminal liability, the petitioner may seek his remedy both on civil as well as criminal side of administration of justice. H.B.T./M-1834/L Order accordingly.