2002 PLP 27 (MLD)

"For the reasons to be recorded later, the impugned order dated 26‑1‑2001 of Anti‑Corruption Committee of the Punjab Bar Council is set aside and the appeal is accepted." Now the following are the reasons recorded for the short order passed as above. The main allegations against the present appellant is that he has engaged himself in the business of journalism and is therefore indulging in other trade or profession which would be liable for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Rule 108‑0 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. The counsel appearing for the appellant has at the very outset challenged the jurisdiction of the Anti‑Corruption Committee of Punjab Bar Council and the competence of the said Committee to impose the penalty. He has referred to various provisions of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973. Now, therefore, the question that requires consideration is as to whether the said Anti‑Corruption Committee is empowered to act independently and imposed such drastic penalties as the cancellation of licence etc. Section 10(1) of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act in clauses (a) and (aa) provides for constitution of Committee by Provincial Bar Council which include an Executive Committee and a Disciplinary Committee respectively while clause (b) of the said section provides for constitution of one or more Enrolment Committees. Subsection (2) of the said provisions provides that each of the aforesaid Committees shall have such powers and functions as may be prescribed. Subsection (3) provides that a Provincial Bar Council may constitute from amongst its members such other Committees as it may deem necessary for the performance of its functions under this Act and may authorize any such Committee to co‑opt as its members any other persons, not exceeding such number as the Council may determine. The Anti‑Corruption Committee of the Punjab Bar Council seems to be constituted under this provision. The powers of the aforesaid Committees and the procedure have been provided for in Role No.117 onwards as contained in Chapter X of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, as amended. However, in the present case it is Chapter VII of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 that will apply. Section 41 of the Act provides for punishments of Advocates for misconduct while section 42 provides for constitution of Tribunals both by Pakistan Bar Council and the Provincial Bar Councils and the procedure in inquiries is laid down in sections 43 to 45, whereas disciplinary powers of Pakistan Bar Council are provided for in section

46. Now, a careful reading of the provision would show that it will be the provisions of section .4.1(2) under which the Disciplinary Committee is competent to take cognizance of the complaint and after enquiry as provided therein refer the matter to a Tribunal for decision. Section 43(5) provides that it is only the Tribunal that is competent to I~, impose any of the punishments as provided in section 41(1) of the Act and that such order would be appealable before the Pakistan Bar Council. These are the statutory provisions and cannot be superseded or surpassed by any Rules or Acts of the Provincial Bar Councils. From these provisions it is quite obvious that the authority to take cognizance of any complaint against an advocate lies with the Disciplinary Committee of the tear Council while the authority to impose punishment rests with the Tribunal constituted under section 42 of the Act. Therefore, no authority for holding enquiry, or imposing punishment can be entrusted to any non‑statutory Committee and, accordingly, we hold the impugned order to be without jurisdiction. With the above observations the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order passed by the Anti‑Corruption Committee of the Punjab Bar Council on 26‑1‑2001 is set aside. These are the reasons for the short order announced on 4‑5‑2001. Q.M.H./M.A.K./K‑65/L Appeal accepted.