1998 PLP 1398 (MLD)

Representation

• Ch. MUHAMMAD ARSHAD MEHLU, ADVOCATE---Respondent
• ----S. 41(4)---Professional ' misconduct by Advocate---Complaint against Advocate was filed that he had received fee and another specified amount on pretext of depositing the same in Court---Advocate concerned acknowledged receipt of specified amount through receipt and made statement before Disciplinary Committee that he would return specified amount on next date but he failed to return the same---Matter was referred to Tribunal of Bar Council which issued notice to Advocate who again promised to return the amount by next date but he did not appear on next date and even thereafter on dates fixed for payment of such amount---Misconduct of Advocate stood admitted and the same persisted even before Disciplinary Committee as also before the Tribunal of Bar Council---Advocate as per his conduct had no intention to make payment of amount, illegally and fraudulently received from complainant---Advocate with such conduct had no right to continue practice---Tribunal of Bar Council directed removal of Advocate from practice under S. 41(1), Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973---Advocate was debarred to appear and plead as Advocate before any Court, Tribunal or Authority---Complainant was directed to register criminal case against Advocate with police---Copy of order was supplied to complainant for production before Senior Superintendent of Police.
• Nemo for Respondent.
• Mr. Rifat Saeed Dar, Complainant, states that a copy of the order dated 14-3-1998 was produced before the respondent/Advocate by him personally in his office at 1-Turner Road, Lahore in Abdullah Chambers, with the request to make the payment, but despite the promise made amount has not been paid to him. He adds that on second visit to the office of the respondent/Advocate, he was told to await his phone call as amount was being arranged by him. The office has also served a notice on the respondent/Advocate but he has not cared to pay the amount or to enter appearance today.
• 2. Mr. Rifat Saeed Dar, Complainant, had submitted a complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council alleging that sum of Rs. 7,000 was received by the respondent/Advocate as professional fee from him and another sum of Rs. 36,000 was received by the respondent/Advocate on the pretext that the said amount has been ordered to be deposited with the Court towards maintenance of his wife. The respondent/Advocate has also executed receipt acknowledging receipt of Rs. 36,000 but the sum so received for deposit with the Court was admittedly not deposited with the Court nor any such amount was directed by the Court to be deposited.
• 3. During the proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council, Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mehlu respondent/Advocate undertook to return the amount of Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant by 31-7-1996. In view of this undertaking,, Complainant agreed to withdraw the Complaint in case the said amount was paid to him. As the respondent/Advocate despite promises/undertaking failed to return the amount and also failed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee, the case of the respondent/Advocate was referred to this Tribunal for proceeding against him under section 41(4) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973.
• 4. This Tribunal summoned the respondent/Advocate, who, on 13-12-1997 again undertook to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant within two months in two equal instalments. In view of this undertaking, the respondent/Advocate was directed to pay the first instalment of Rs. 25,000 on 17-1-1998. The matter came up before this Tribunal on 14-3-1998 as the Tribunal could not meet on 17-1-1998, the date fixed for payment of the first instalment. Even by 14-3-1998, the first instalment remained unpaid, and the respondent/Advocate sent a written request for adjournment on account of illness. He was, therefore, required through a notice to pay Rs. 50,000 to the Complainant before the next date of hearing and to produce the receipt acknowledging payment of the entire amount on the next date of hearing when the respondent was required to appear in person. The matter was adjourned to 18-4-1998 but the Tribunal could not meet on this date and the respondent/Advocate was notified to appear today before the Tribunal.
• 5. Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mehlu, Advocate/respondent despite service of notice has not entered appearance. He has also not paid a single penny to the Complainant out of the admitted sum of Rs. 50,000 despite personal contact made by the Complainant. The misconduct of the respondent stands admitted. This misconduct persisted even before the Disciplinary Committee as well as this Tribunal. The respondent/Advocate, it appears, has no intention to make the amends and to make payment of the amount illegally and fraudulently received from the Complainant. An Advocate with such a conduct has no right to continue practice. The Tribunal, therefore, directs removal of the respondent, Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mehlu, Advocate, from practice under section 41(1) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. He is debarred to appear and plead as an Advocate before any Court, Tribunal or authority All concerned shall be informed and entries to this effect shall be made in the Rolls of Advocates against his name.
• The complainant is also directed to register a criminal case against the respondent/Advocate with the Police. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the complainant for production before the S.S.P., Lahore.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree