Emperor vs Guru Prasad Mukhtar

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Gaya u/s 14, Legal Practitioners'' Act, on a report relating to the conduct of one Babu Guru Prasad, Mukhtar, practising at Nawadah which was sent up by the Sub-divisional Officer of Nawadah through the District Magistrate. There were two charges against the mukhtar: the first of which having regard to the seriousness of the other charge is of no great importance, and the Judge considers that it may in the circumstances be overlooked. It is that of making insulting references in a transfer petition against the Sub-divisional Magistrate. Having regard to the view that we take of the second offence I need make no further reference to this charge.

The second charge relates to the conduct of the mukhtar in the professional representation of an individual named Bacho Singh against whom charges u/s 107, Criminal P.C., were proceeding. Bacho Singh appears to have been undesirous of appearing before the Magistrate and after various adjournments on his application the case was fixed to come on for hearing before the Magistrate of Nawadah on 10th July, Bacho Singh being released on bail for that purpose.

Now the case was called on before the Magistrate at about 11 o''clock in the morning and the mukhtar, Babu Guru Prasad, then appeared in Court and informed the sub-divisional Magistrate that Bacho Singh was unwell at Mirganj; that he the mukhtar had seen him there on the day before and he asked for permission to appear on behalf of Bacho Singh as Bacho Singh was unable to appear personally. This immediately provoked an indignant denial of the truth of the statement from persons on the other side of the case who were present in Court. Thereupon one Ramdeo Singh swore an affidavit before the Court and in that affidavit he stated that after the release of Bacho Singh to appear in Court he had seen Bacho Singh in the Court compound at Nawadah at 10 o''clock and also seen the mukhtar there at the same time; that the mukhtar was with Bacho Singh and that Bacho Singh was signing a mukhtarnama at the time. Later on the Magistrate called upon Bacho Singh to answer charges and the witnesses, that is to say Ramdeo Singh and two other persons who will be named in a moment, appeared before the Magistrate and gave evidence.

Ramdeo Singh repeated his statements as to seeing the mukhtar in the company of Bacho Singh on 10th July and he was cross-examined. The cross-examination did not shake his evidence in the slightest degree. Then another witness was called, named Barhamdeo Singh. He said that on 10th July he had seen Bacho Singh alight from the train at Nawadah in the morning and that he also saw Guru Prasad Mukhtar alight from the train with him, and the cross-examination also failed to shake this witness''s evidence. Then a stamp vendor named Wilayat Husain was called and he said that on 10th July he saw Bacho Singh in the cutchery, but he did not see him in the company of the mukhtar; on the same day the mukhtar had purchased a stamp from him shortly after the witness had seen Bacho Singh and the witness also said that he remembered the date because that was the day upon which the Magistrate had sent for him.

Now the mukhtar had every opportunity had he so wished of giving evidence and denying the truth of these statements. He however did not take that course and having regard to the penalty for giving false evidence I think he was wise, but he filed a petition and in that he made a most ambiguous and disingenuous statement. He alleged that "the statement which he had made before the Court was absolutely true and based on instructions and the duty of lawyer is to speak to the Court on behalf of a client only on the instructions given to him. I therefore submit that my conduct before your honour was in consonance to the etiquette of the profession to which I have the honour to belong.

It is hardly necessary to say that it is not part of the etiquette of members of the profession to tell lies in Court or to give perjured evidence on behalf of their clients.

It will be noted that the mukhtar apparently intended to make his statement in such a form that he could fall back upon the so called instructions of his clients, but he is unable to escape from the palpable fact that his earlier statements to the Magistrate were made as based on his own knowledge. An attempt has been made on his behalf to suggest that he had obtained his acquaintance of his client''s illness through the medium of a medical certificate which the client ten days before had filed in the criminal case. But such an attempt is not worthy of serious consideration.

We have stated in other cases in which mukhtars are concerned that it is the duty of this Court not only to protect the members of the public against disreputable members of the profession, but it is also our duty to protect the profession itself against the loss of reputation brought upon it by the conduct of such members.

The learned Sessions Judge in forwarding this case to the Court has recommended that the mukhtar be suspended for a period of one year. In our opinion this is wholly inadequate punishment and it is our duty to relieve the profession from the existence of a thoroughly unworthy member and the mukhtar Babu Guru Prasad will be removed from the rolls.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.

James, J.

I agree.