Crown vs B. Puran Chand, Advocate

Kartar Singh, J.—The Government Advocate Patiala draw up proceedings against Mr. Puran Chand an advocate of this Court under the Legal Practitioners Act and the statement of charges against him reads as follows:

(1) That you (Mr. Puran Chand Advocate, Patiala) having been engaged on behalf of the Appellant Nathu Bam S/o Salig Ram Brahman of Bhatinda in civil appeal No. 122 against Banarsi Dass and others of Bhatinda decided by the High Court of Judicature at Patiala, did not make up the deficiency of Rs. 103-8-0 on account of the Court-fee in the said appeal, although the sum of Rs. 104 was admittedly received by you from your client (Nathu Ram Appellant) on or about 9th of Har 2003, for that purpose.

(2) That the deficiency in the Court-fee in the said appeal was to be made up by 21-3-2003 as ordered by the Division Bench of the High Court on 6-3-2003.

(3) That by not making up the deficiency as stated in No. 1. above in time, the said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 22-3-2003 with the result that the said Nathu Ram was deprived of his valuable right to be heard in the said appeal by the High Court. By this act of your negligence on your part you have been guilty of fraudulent or gross improper conduct in the discharge of your professional duties within the provisions of Clause (b) of Section 9, Patiala Legal Practitioners Act 2001, and therefore have rendered yourself liable to be suspended or dismissed from practice.

The facts and circumstances which led to this complaint and the above mentioned charges put briefly are that Nathu Ram complainant had engaged Mr. Puran Chand to conduct a Civil appeal in the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal the Counsel was called upon to make up the deficiency in the Court-fee stamp, inasmuch as the suit was of a possessory nature and the court fee stamp was paid only for the purpose of declaration. Thereupon Mr. Puran Chand informed Nathu Ram, his client, to the effect that the amount of Rs. 103-8-0 was more to be deposited to make up the deficiency in the Court-fee within a week and that arrangement for payment may be made before the fixed date. It is not disputed that the complainant sent the required amount by a draft before the fixed data but Mr. Puran Chand, some how or other, did not see his way to deposit the requisite amount with the result that the appeal was dismissed for want of Court-fee. Nathu Ram having felt aggrieved with the decision of the High Court applied for special leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Ijlas-i-Khas and the grounds of appeal were also filed along with. The application for leave to appeal was, however, dismissed by Judicial Committee''s order dated 29-10-2003 and the complainant moved this Court against Mr. Puran Chand by an application dated 16th Har, 2005 for proceeding against him for committing professional misconduct on account of which he had suffered loss. Notice was issued to Mr. Puran Chand under the Legal Practitioners Act and it was alleged inter alia by him that the case of Nathu Ram was very weak on merits and after having once discussed before the Division Bench, he was of the opinion that it was not in the interest of his client that the Court-fee should have been paid. Consequently he sent him another letter wherein it was explained to him that it would be better that the parties should come to some terms and at any rate if ha wanted him to deposit the Court-fee, he would do the needful. It was further alleged that no information was received by him till the evening of 21st of Har, 2003 and on the following day although he made a request to the Court in pursuance of the instructions which he received late from his client that he was prepared to make up the deficiency the learned Judges did not extend the period and as such the delay in not depositing the Court-fee amount was not intentional and the complaint was made only for his harassment. Both sides were given an opportunity of adducing any evidence which they wanted to produce but the evidence was closed without the complainant or the Respondent having come into the witness box. Arguments were addressed on the record as it stands and the contention of the Respondent was that the draft was not cashed and the same was returned to Nathu Ram complainant when he came to Patiala on the information of the appeal having been dismissed and that this fact was not mentioned in the complaint which appears to have the framing of charge. On facts, the Respondent contended that he had not in any way availed the amount sent by the complainant and it was lying in trust and was duly returned to him as he was of the opinion that the case of the complainant had no legs and thus tried to save his amount.

Mr. Puran Chand in the course of his address also carried me through the facts of the original case which briefly are to the effect that his client Nathu Bam had purchased a house which actually belonged to five brothers although the decree in which that sale had taken place was against one brother only. The argument of the counsel was that under these circumstances he had become alive to the weakness of the case and honestly believed that it would be rather to his interest that the Court-fee should not have (sic) paid. But when he received information late in the evening of 21st he still made an honest effort on 22nd for getting the money deposited but the learned Judges did not allow any further extension. The argument was further stressed that the complainant, when he filed an appeal in the Judicial Committee, did not complain of Respondent''s negligence or having committed any professional misconduct as shown by the copy of grounds of appeal brought on this record and it was only after more than two years when he was called upon to make up the deficiency of the Court-fee of the trial Court that he filed this complaint against him. It was further argued that the decree with regard to costs was amended and the complainant was exonerated from that amount of court-fee which was levied against him as costs of the trial Court. The counsel concluded that the grievance of complainant was only to the extent that his appeal was dismissed for want of Court-fee and not that the Respondent had defrauded him in any way or had misappropriated his money and that the charge against him did not amount to professional misconduct.

On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate urged that although it was not a ease of defrauding the complainant yet the counsel was negligent enough in not complying with the wishes of his client and in over-zeal let the time pass within which the deficiency in Court-fee was to be made up and this negligence has delved the complainant of his valuable right of the hearing of appeal on merits. Reliance was placed on A, a Mukhtar, in the matter of In Re: A, a Mukhtar, wherein their Lordships of the Special Bench observed that it is incumbent upon the High Court to protect the illiterate litigants whose trust has been betrayed by practitioners and if it is established that the lawyer instead of discharging his duties faithfully like person of trust and honour, had betrayed that trust with the result that the litigant has been deprived of a valuable right, such conduct amounted to professional misconduct. The facts of that case, however, stand on different footing inasmuch as in that case a sum of Rs. 166 was admitted by the counsel to have been received and that he had spent some part of that amount to his own use. It was a clear case of misappropriation of the money and the counsel was unable to produce it at the proper time when he was called upon by his client. The plea of the counsel in that case was that the deposit ought not to have been made because some of the judgment-debtors were minors. Under these circumstances their Lordships held that the counsel had misappropriated the money deposited with him by the poor client whose rights to property were put in jeopardy and the client was again forced to raise fresh money by pawning his bicycle and by going to a Mahajan from whom he took a further loan at an exorbitant rate of interest. In the present case, as stated above, the draft was not cashed by the Respondent and was duly returned and it appears that the complainant at the time of filing the appeal in the Judicial Committee did not demur but subsequently having failed and under the pressure of more demand, filed this application after more than two years. This fact by itself may not be sufficient to exonerate the Respondent from discharging a certain duty imposed upon him but the real question for determination is whether he bad dishonestly failed to discharge his duties or it was a question of indiscretion and laxity on his part in not depositing the amount when he had become conscious of the weakness of his client''s case. It is settled rule of law that charges of professional misconduct must be clearly proved and should not be inferred from mere ground for suspicion, however, reasonable or what may be mere error of judgment or indiscretion.

Mr. Narindar Singh, the learned Government Advocate has frankly conceded before me that the facts and circumstances giving rise to suspicion against Mr. Puran Chand do not lead to infer that his conduct was fraudulent or that he reaped any benefit out of it. He only urged that it would have been better if he should have deposited the amount even if he had not received instructions from his client till 21st and should have thus avoided any attack upon him although according to him he was doing something in the interest of his client. The question consequently for determination before me is whether the charge of grossly improper conduct in the discharge of professional duty has been established against Mr. Puran Chand. It would have been a different matter if he had got the cheque cashed and sp(sic)nt the money for his own use but the very circumstance that he kept the cheque intact and gave back the same to his client, leads me to think that the counsel had no mala fide intention.

The other question which crops up for discussion is whether he was negligent in the discharge of his duties and this sort of negligence amounts to professional misconduct. In this respect my attention was invited to Pleader, Tirup-pur, In the matter of In Re: A Pleader, wherein their Lordships held that allowing a suit to be dismissed in default is merely a negligence and negligence does not amount to professional misconduct. Some talk of compromise has also been borne out from the pleadings of the parties and it was maintained by Mr. Puran Chand that although the learned Government Advocate asked for an opportunity for examining his client yet the complainant baa not come into the witness box and has thus failed to explain the stand taken by the Respondent which could not be an after-thought as the same was mentioned on 22nd of Har, 2003 before the Court when the request was made for the extension of time. The Respondent concludes that the complainant has deliberately refrained from coming into the witness box and thereby subject himself to the cross-examinations. In consideration of all these facts and circumstances what appears to me is that at the worst the Respondent was not discreet enough to advise his client in the manner that he did after having smelt an adverse decision in the course of arguments as stated by him in his written statement. Even stretching the case to its utmost it may amount to certain indiscretion or laxity on his part but I do not think that it is a fit case for any disciplinary action being taken against him.

I hold accordingly.