P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Ali, Additional Advocate‑General for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th March 1959. The District Magistrate of Mianwali, by his order dated 22‑5‑1957, declared Syed Amir Hussain Shah a tout and directed under section 36 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act, that his name should be included in the list of touts. Against that order Sayed Amir Hussain Shah has presented a revision application to this Court. At a special meeting of the Bar Association of Bhakkar held on 24‑4‑1956, for the purpose of considering the question of declaring Sayed Amir Hussain Shah a tout, a resolution was un animously passed by which he was declared a tout. The resolution was based on the finding, that Sayed Amir Hussain Shah urged to exact enormous amounts of money from the litigants on the false pretext of engaging counsel for them, and if ever he engaged a counsel he retained a large share for himself as his remuneration. The resolution further stated :‑ "These facts warrant that the abovementioned Amir Hussain Shah be declared a tout to save the general public from his nefarious acts and also to vouchsafe the smooth dispensation of justice and Administration." Copies of the resolution were sent to the High Court Bench at Lahore and the District Magistrate of Mianwali. Besides that resolution the Petition Writers of Bhakkar made an application to the Civil Judge, Bhakkar in which they accused Amir Hussain Shah of procuring cases for lawyers on retaining a part of the fee as his commission. It was also said in it that he was a constant frequenter of Courts and engaged himself in other peoples' litigations. The District Magistrate entrusted an inquiry into this matter to the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate of Bhakkar. At that enquiry the Secretary of the Bar Association Bhakkar appeared as a witness and said that the resolution declaring the petitioner to be a tout was passed by the Bar Association at a special meeting convened for the purpose of declaring Sayed Amir Hussain Shah to be a tout. Fateh Muhammad, a Petition writer appeared and stated that application against Amir Hussain Shah's conduct was prepared by the Petition Writers and was signed by them and his signature was also obtained on it; but in so far he himself was concerned he had no complaint against him. Amir Hussain Shah in his written statement denied that he ever procured legal business for any lawyer on receipt of commission fee from him, or from his client. He said that he owned about 50 thousand kanals of land in different villages, and had large number of his own cases in Courts to attend to, and if he was seen frequently in Courts it was in pursuit of his own litigation. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner attacked the order under revision on the ground that not a single specific instance of toutism, as defined in section 3 of the Legal Practi tioners Act, has been adduced against the petitioner. In the absence of any specific instance, it was urged, it was not correct to declare him a tout. It is true that before dubbing a person a tout positive evidence should be led to prove that he procures the employment of legal practitioners in legal business in consideration of remuneration. Such evidence would no doubt consist of specific instances of such procurement in return for reward. But as evidence of such instances is not easy to produce, the law has provided, in Explan ation to section 36 (1) of the Act, an alternative for such evidence. That alternative lies in the resolution declaring a person a tout, if at a meeting of an association of person entitled to practise as legal practitioners in any Court, the resolution is passed by a majority of the members of the Association. The resolution of the Members of the Bar Association, who are persons entitled to practise as legal practitioner, if passed by the majority of the Members of the Association present at the meeting held for this purpose, dispenses with further proof of toutism. That resolution furnishes evidence of the general repute of being a tout, and on that evidence a person can be declared a tout under section 36 (1) of the Legal Practitioners Act. In the presence of such a resolution further evidence of toutism, against a person charged with toutism, is not necessary. In this case we have in that resolution evidence of that general repute against Sayed Amir Hussain Shah, and that resolution in law is enough to condemn the petitioner. The resolution gains strength from the fact that no evidence has been adduced by Sayed Amir Hussain Shah in refutation of the charge. Evidence of specific instances of procurement of legal business for a legal practitioner, in consideration of remuneration, would have been necessary if that resolution had not been available. A Resolution of Bar Association passed in accordance with the pro visions of the Explanation to subsection (1) of section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act was held to be sufficient for the purpose of condemning a person as a tout in A I R 1932 Bom. page 596 and A I R 1928 All. page

334. On the evidence of general repute adduced in the shape of the resolution of the Bar Association of Bhakkar petitioner's name could be included in the list of touts and no further evidence by citation of specific instance of pro curement of legal business in return for remuneration was necessary. This petition is rejected. Petition rejected