P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

Representation

• Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926), S. 10 (2)‑---High Court may allow Advocate to explain allegations against him before referring complaint to Bar Council‑---Advocate pleading guilty may be forthwith dealt with by High Court ‑Desirability of Rules being suitably amended‑---Advocate‑Misconduct.
• According to the wording of section 10, Bar Councils Act, if the complaint is not summarily rejected it is to be referred to the Bar Council or the District Judge but the reason for this is that section 10 does not contemplate a case where the Advocate concerned is called upon to file a reply to the complaint and he admits the allegations in the complaint. In fact it does not contemplate a notice to the Advocate and reply from him before the case is referred to the Bar Council. Even in the rules which have been framed under section 10 no such provision exists.
• In spite of this omission, however, there can be no objection to the Advocate being allowed an opportunity to explain the allegations against him even before the case is referred to the Bar Council. It may be that after a consideration of his explanation the High Court may not deem it necessary to proceed any further.
• Section 10 as well as the rules framed under the Bar Councils Act do not take notice of a case where an Advocate has already been convicted by a Criminal Court. In such a case too there would prima facie be no need to refer the matter to the Bar Council or to the District Judge.
• Where the charges were that the Advocate (who was also enrolled as an Attorney in the Supreme Court) had got himself engaged on behalf of petitioners in a criminal case, namely, special leave to appeal to Supreme Court, by unprofessional means and misrepresentation inasmuch as, having charged a fee. of Rs. 2,000 he did not engage a counsel for the fee received, but engaged a counsel for Rs. 100 only, and apart from his fee and the incidental expenses, misappropriated the balance of the money received, the petition having been dismissed he did not inform the client of the result and, on the contrary, wrote or caused to be written a letter demanding more money without stating what it was needed for and that when, in response to his letter the clients came to him he repeated his demand for more money requiring them to pay another Rs. 1,000 to which the Advocate pleaded guilty, the High Court ordered removal of the Advocate's name from the roll of the Court without a reference to the Bar Council etc., under section 10, Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926).
• Sardar Muhammad 1qbal and S. M. Zafar for Respondent.
• KAIKAUS, J.---‑These are proceedings for professional mis?conduct against Mr. Abdul Majid Lashari, who is an Advocate of this Court and who was at the relevant time also an attorney of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. His name has since been removed from the roll of attorneys on account of the same misconduct which is the subject matter of these proceedings.
• 2. Some time in April 1958 one Muhammad Bakhsh submitted two applications, one to the High Court of West Pakistan, and the other to the Supreme Court of Pakistan, alleging that Mr. Lashari had secured money from him on false pretences. In case State v. Sawa and others convictions and sentences of certain persons under section 302, P. P. C. had been confirmed by the High Court on the 18th of December 1957. A son of Muhammad Bakhsh complainant was one of the accused who had been sentenced to transportation for life. According to the allegations in the complaint Muhammad Bakhsh and his brother Nur Hayat had come to Lahore to engage a senior counsel for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court. Near the High Court they met a person who called himself Ashraf but whose real name was Saidu. He asked them what their business was and they told him that against four of their relatives sentences of death had been confirmed by the High Court and they wanted to engage some senior counsel for an appeal to the Supreme Court. Ashraf told them that he would take them to a person who would give them reliable advice as 'to whether there will be any hope of success of an appeal. He took them to the house of a lawyer at McLeod Road, where there was an old man whose name they afterwards came to know was Nabi Bakhsh. Nabi Bakhsh told them after reading copy of the judgment that they had good case and that the convicts would be acquitted if they engaged Mr. Lashari, Advocate, of the Supreme Court, who was a very big lawyer. Ashraf accompanied them to the house of Mr. Lashari. He told Mr. Lashari that Muhammad Bakhsh and his brother were connected with him and that he should show them consideration in the matter of fee. Mr. Lashari assured them after reading the copy of judgment that he would get all the four accused acquitted from the Supreme Court. He demanded Rs. 4,000 as his fee as he had to engage a junior counsel also. Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat said that they were poor people. In the meantime Nabi Bakhsh also reached the house of Mr. Lashari. Nabi Bakhsh and Ashraf pleaded on behalf of Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat with the result that Mr. Lashari agreed to accept Rs. 2,000. Rs. 600 were paid at the very time and the remaining Rs. 1,400 were to be paid on the 27th of January 1958 on which date Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat again went to Mr. Lashari. Ashraf was also there and Rs. 1,400 were paid to Mr. Lashari. Muhammad Bakhsh and his brother were asked to go back to their homes and to wait for information as to the date on which the case was to be taken up. On the 3rd of March 1958 they received a letter from Mr. Lashari (which bad been despatched on 25‑2‑58) that in connection with the appeal they should collect money from the relatives of the four condemned persons and should reach Lahore on the 1st of March 1958. This letter surprised Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat because they had already paid the whole of the fee. They came, to Lahore and met Mr. Lashari and even at that time Ashraf was present. Mr. Lashari said that in the appeal at least Rs. 1,000 more was needed and that if they did not spend this further amount they would suffer. Ashraf advised them to act as Mr. Lashari told them and to spend even this amount. Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat came out of the house of Mr. Lashari for consultation. Mr. Lashari told Ashraf to take them to Ch. Nur Ahmad, Advocate. They asked Ashraf as to who Mr. Nur Ahmad was and Ashraf told them that he was the person who had appeared in their case and that he was a big lawyer. They said it was Mr. Lashari who had been, represented to be a big counsel and who had received the sum of Rs. 2,000. They went to Mr. Nur Abmad along with Ashraf. Mr. Nur Ahmad told them that the appeal had already been dismissed on the 21st of February 1958 but that if they paid another fee he would get the accused acquitted. He said it was he who had appeared in the Supreme Court on the 21st because Mr. Lashari was only an attorney. At this Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat asked Mr. Nur Ahmad as to what an attorney was and they were told that an attorney was a kind of junior lawyer. They said then that they had been the victim of a fraud and that they had never heard the word attorney till that day. Mr. Nur Ahmad told them that they should not worry and that they should bring Rs. 1,000 more. They then paid Mr. Nur Ahmad Rs. 100 and promised to pay Rs. 900 more on the 15th of March 1958. On that date when they came to Lahore they met one Matte Ali on the railway station who told them that their appeal had been dismissed, that Mr. Lashari had cheated them by representing himself as a big lawyer, and that Mr. Lashari had only paid Rs. 100 to Mr. Nur Ahmad for appearance in the case. He told them that they should make no further payment to the counsel. The next day all the three went to the High Court and enquired about Ashraf and Nabi Bakhsh. They found that the person who called himself Ashraf was Saidu and that he was a tout whose profession was cheating. They also came to know that Nabi Bakhsh was an ex‑tout and a veteran in this line. They then went to the house of Mr. Nur Ahmad. They did not find Saidu there but had a talk with Mr. Nur Ahmad and he stated that he had received only Rs. 100 as his fee from Mr. Lashari. Mr. Lashari has told him that the party was very poor and could not pay any more. Mr. Nur Ahmad said that he had not been supplied even with the paper‑book by Mr. Lashari. All the three then went to the High Court and complained to the lawyers and their clerks. They spoke to Mr. Lashari and told him that he had played a fraud upon them and had received money by representing himself to be a very senior counsel. Qureshi Abdul Haque, Advocate, and Mr. Nur Ahmad asked Mr. Lashari to come to the office of Qureshi Abdul Haque and to settle the matter with Muhammad Bakhsh and Nur Hayat, but Mr. Lashari avoided meeting them.
• "10. (1) The High Court may, in the manner hereinafter provided, reprimand, suspend or remove from practice any advocate of the High Court whom it finds guilty of professional or other misconduct.
• (2) Upon receipt of a complaint made to it by any Court or by the Bar Council or by any other person that any such advocate has been guilty of misconduct, the High Court shall? if it does tot summarily reject the complaint, refer the case for inquiry either to the Bar Council or, after con?sultation with the Bar Council, to the Court of a District Judge (hereinafter referred to as a District Court) and may of its own motion so refer any case in which it has otherwise reason to believe that any such advocate has been so guilty.
• (3) On receipt of the finding, the High Court shall fix a date for the hearing of the case and shall cause notice of the day so fixed to be given to the advocate concerned and to the Bar Council and the Advocate‑General, and shall afford the advocate concerned and the Bar Council and the Advocate‑General an opportunity of being heard before orders are passed in the case.
• (7) When any advocate is reprimanded or suspended under this Act, a record of the punishment shall be entered against his name in the roll of advocates of the High Court, and when an advocate is removed from practice his name shall forthwith be struck off the roll ; and the certificate of any advocate so suspended or removed shall be recalled ".
• Before the application of the Bar Councils Act procedure for professional misconduct against advocates were taken under clause 8 of the Letters Patent of the Lahore High Court and the Rules framed thereunder. Now, the proceedings are governed by the relevant provisions of the Bar Councils Act and the rules framed under that Act. It will be observed that according to section 10 a complaint against an Advocate received by the High Court if not summarily rejected is to be referred for enquiry either to the Bar Council or after consultation with the Bar Council to a District Judge. There is a possible argument that all complaints which are not summarily rejected must be sent to the Bar Council or to the District Judge. 'The argument, however, would be entirely without force. The only object of reference to the Bar Council is that an inquiry be held and findings arrived at by the Bar Council (through the Tribunal of the Bar Council) as to the facts alleged in the complaint. The Tribunal which is constituted under section 11 is to record its findings and forward them to the High Court. That is the only function which is to be performed by the Bar Council, and the need for reference to the Bar Council will arise only if there is need for an inquiry. It is true that according to the wording of section 10 if the complaint i not summarily rejected it is to be referred to the Bar Council or the District Judge but the reason for this is that section 10 A does not contemplate a case where the Advocate concerned is called upon to file a reply to the complaint and he admits the allegations in the complaint. In fact it does not contemp?late a notice to the Advocate and reply from him before the case is referred to the Bar Council. Even in the rules which have been framed under section 10 no such provision exists. In spite of this omission, however, there can be no objection to the Advocate being allowed an opportunity to explain the allegations against him even before the case is referred to the Bar Council. It may be that after a consideration of his explanation the High Court does not deem it necessary to proceed any further. There may be a number of cases where on account of this opportunity being afforded to an Advocate at an early stage proceedings are not initiated against him. In the rules framed under the Letters Patent it had been provided that on receipt of a complaint a notice was to be served on the Advocate to file a written statement in answer to the com?plaint. The complaint and the written statement were then to be placed before a single Judge acting in his administrative capacity and the single Judge could after a preliminary enquiry either drop the proceedings or direct the taking of further action in which case the matter would be laid before a Division Bench. These provisions are now missing. Still there cannot in law be any objection to such a procedure although it is desirable that the rules be suitably amended so as to make c such provisions. It is to be observed in this connection that section 10 as well as the rules framed under the Bar Councils Act do not take notice of a case where an advocate has already been convicted by a Criminal Court. In such a case too there would prima facie be no need to refer the matter to the Bar Council or to the District Judge.
• 5. The charges being admitted the only suitable action which can be taken is to remove the name of Mr. Lashari from the roll of the Advocates. Mr Lashari took Rs. 2,000 from the complainants and out of this sum paid only Rs. 100 to Mr. Nur Ahmad Parhar. According to the statement which he made to the Supreme Court, his own fees as attorney was Rs. 500. If he paid Rs. 100 as fee of the counsel then ex hypothesi Rs. 100 would be sufficient as attorney's fee, but assuming that his fee was Rs. 500 he paid only Rs. 100 to Mr. Nur Ahmad Parhar and appropriated the rest of the money. He said in the Supreme Court that he had spent Rs. 300 as incidental charges. He filed, however, , no accounts. In the High Court he had been examined also by the Administration Judge and he had stated that he had paid Rs. 200 to his own Munshi. He stated further that he always paid 10% out of the total fee received to his own Munshi. An attorney is not expected to have any Munshi and he cannot force the parties to pay for his Munshi. It is also surprising that to his own Munshi he paid Rs. 200 and to the counsel who appeared only Rs. 100. Then he took advantage of the help?lessness of his clients and tried to rob them of another sum of Rs. 1,000. It has been urged on his behalf that he is in straitened circumstances and has a big family to support and we should on compassionate grounds not remove his name from the roll of Advocates, but should suspend him for some time. We do not see how in a case of this nature such an appeal can be made. Poverty or similar matters cannot be taken into consideration in a case where the conduct of the Advocate involves a high degree of moral turpitude. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took a grave view of the matter and with very great respect same is the view which we take. It is impossible to retain on the roll of Advocates a person who has no scruples in misappropriating the money entrusted to him by his client or in making attempts to realise money on false pretences.
• 6. We direct that his name be removed from' the roll of Advocates of this High Court.

Judgment & Decree