In Re: In the matter of P.J. Ratnam, Advocate, Guntur

Chandra Reddy, C.J.—The respondent is an Advocate practising at Guntur. He was retained to appear for the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 432 of 1951 On the file of the District Munsif''s Court, Guntur. That was a suit instituted by the four plaintiffs for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the lands obtained from Government under the Grow More Food Scheme. The same lands were assigned subsequently to the defendants who were political sufferers. Pending the suit, the plaintiffs applied for a temporary injunction. Both the suit and the interlocutory application were dismissed, the latter earlier. Appeals were carried to the Subordinate Judge against the order refusing to give interim order as also against the decree of the District Munsif. While dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal the Subordinate Judge directed the lower court to appoint a Commissioner to sell the standing crop in public auction between the parties and deposit into court the amount thus realised. This was done and if fetched a sum of Rs. 1600/- which was deposited into court on 19-12-1951. Some time later, the appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed. The aggrieved defendants filed Second Appeal in the High Court of Madras. Meanwhile, the successful plaintiffs asked for an order for payment of the amount in deposit. In spite of the opposition of the defendants, the plaintiffs were allowed to withdraw the amount in deposit pending Second Appeal on furnishing security. The plaintiffs accordingly filed E. A. No. 250 of 1953 through the respondent for the issue of a cheque for Rs. 1506-1-0 furnishing the immoveable property security of one Jacob. After deducting poundage as also some amounts paid to the Government towards tax, a cheque was directed to be issued for a sum of Rs. 1452-4-0 in favour of the respondent. Accordingly a cheque was issued to the respondent next day and it was cashed by him-

Eventually, the Second Appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and the suit was dismissed with costs and the successful defendants levied execution to enforce the security. By a letter dated 8-2-1956 one of the plaintiffs, Mark, demanded of the respondent the sum of Rs. 1452-4-0 received by him, saying that although the plaintiffs asked for this amount several times, he did not pay it to them and was gaining time and putting off the payment. Another letter written by the 1st plaintiff on the same date is in the same terms. The respondent instead of sending a reply to them issued a registered notice to one P. S. Sambasiva Rao, who is shown to be interested in the plaintiffs on the 15th February 1956. It is useful to set out the relevant contents of the document:

In this connection you and Mallepeddi Sambasivarao came to my office alone with the said Kanakiram and others in the month of August or thereabouts of last year, that is a few days before the disposal of the appeal in the High Court saying that Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao wanted even the remaining record with me relating to the lower court, asked me for the same when my clerk Narasayya was absent and took the record from me with your own hands. Afterwards, I do not know whether you yourself gave the said record tO the High Court vakil or whether you got it sent through Kanakiram and others. As my clerk Narassayya was not present I did not take the important receipts in the said record but gave the said record to you without opening it. Taking advantage of the fact the receipts in the said bundle were not with me, the said Kanikaram and others took to wickedness and issued this strange notice to me. I do not know whether you do or do not know about this matter. In these circumstances it is your responsibility to return to me the record taken from me with your hand in the presence of the said Kanikaram and others.

Two months later, the respondent issued the following registered notice to three of the plaintiffs viz., Dakkumalla Kanikaram Merugumala Mark and Kambham Kanakaratnam.

For the notice issued by you falling a victim to the ill advices, as soon as you got the receipt passed somewhat recklessly by you to me in connection with the money in question without putting any date etc. I gave reply on 15-2-56 to your President Pallagudu Sambasiva Rao Nayudu. But he has neither given reply to my notice so far - perhaps according to your desire - nor has he come to me and returned to me the record together with the docket taken away by you from me in connection with the High Court case. I gave a police report also against you on 22-3-56 for the reason that the said President did not give any reply to me in this matter". But as the said Sambasiva Rao has not so far given me any reply, I am giving this registered notice to you also.

You took one headstrong private saying that the case was lost in the High Court, came to my office, accused and abused me that as I engaged Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao as I pleased in the High Court case, that he did something bad, colluded with the opposite party and did not rise up in the court and utter even one single word and so on. Sri Paladugu Sambasiva Rao who acted as a Private in your case on my consent and Mallepeddi Sambasiva Rao fixed and engaged the said Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao. The letters in proof thereof are with me. As you and your private were advised that it was not Just to so belittle Sri Ramchandra Rao who is reputed in the High Court, you gave to me the unjust notice in question. Even now you have the fate of going abegging. If you still take to wickedness, your fate will have to go to infernal regions. In the absence of my clerk, I took out the record from the bureau as soon as you asked and gave it together with the docket honestly to Sri Sambasiva Rao in your presence even without opening the bundle. If in regard to this matter you and your President join together and do not admit, I have proofs therefor. Perhaps you are thinking that merely because you happened to get the receipt therein, you can play any game you like. As soon as you receive this notice, you should hand over my record to me. Otherwise proper action will be taken against you.

In view of this attitude of the respondent and not having obtained satisfaction of payment, the plaintiffs sent a petition to the High Court u/s 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act for taking disciplinary action against the Advocates for professional misconduct, alleging that the respondent failed to pay the amount, which he had withdrawn on their bahalf in E. A. No. 250 of 1953.

The High Court called for the respondent''s explanation in its R. O. C. No. 1602/56. C. 5 dated 7th July 1956 and by another order dated 29-9-1956. The District Judge Guntur, was directed to hold an enquiry under Sec. 10 (2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act and forward a report to the High Court in due course. In his explanation, the respondent said that he received the contents of the cheque in question in the presence of the plaintiffs and their agents and paid the amount to them after obtaining a stamped receipt from them, that the receipt however remained in the records of the case which were delivered to two of the plaintiffs when they asked for them in the second week of August, 1955 for reference in the Second Appeal and that the plaintiffs who were dissatisfied with the choice of their advocate made by the respondent, quarralled with him and, taking advantage of the fact that the receipt was with them, instituted these proceedings. He thus denied that he was guilty of any professional misconduct.

The then District Judge who was not satisfied with this explanation, framed the following charge against the respondent on 24-10-1956:

That you (Sri P. J. Ratnam, Advocate, Guntur) were engaged by 1. Makkamulla Karikaram 2. Merugumalla Mark, and 3. Kambam Kanikar atnam of Sangam Jagarlamudi of Tenali taluk for the purpose of withdrawing moneys due to them from court in O. S. No. 432 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Guntur, that you filed a cheque petition E. A. No. 250 of 1953 for Rs. 1506-1-0, that the Court issued a cheque for Rs. 1452-4-0 in your favour, that you cashed the cheque in the last week of April 1953 and that you never paid the amounts to your clients in spite of repeated requests orally and by registered notices from them and that you are thereby guilty of professional misconduct punishable u/s 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act

The written explanation submitted by the respondent in answer to the charge followed the same pattern as the one furnished by him prior to the framing of the charge.

8-32. (After discussion of the evidence in detail His Lordship held that the charge against the respondent was substantiated. His Lordship then proceeded as follows:)

There remains the contention of the respondent that a charge like this should not be investigated by the High Court in a summary enquiry like the one under S. 10 of the Bar Council''s Act. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in a case like this the aggrieved parties should be directed to file a suit and should not be permitted to agitate the matter in proceedings under S. 10 of the Bar Councils Act. To substantiate this proposition the learned Counsel called in aid a pronouncement of the Privy Council in AIR 1931 112 (Privy Council) and In the matter of H, an Advocate Cawnpore, In Re: H, an Advocate,

In the first of the cases the charge formulated against the advocate was one of perjury and champerty. The answer of the advocate was that he was charged with offences, which were criminal under the Penal Code, he should not be dealt with under the Letters Patent unless and until he was convicted of those offences after a trial. The Advocate also did not want that the matter should be dealt with by the Bench that disposed of the appeal and which found him having done certain acts which would form the subject-matter of the proceedings under Sec. 10. This was overruled by the High Court and the Advocate was found guilty and was struck off the rolls. Ultimately, when the matter went up before the Privy Council the question considered by their Lordships was whether the learned Judges were justified in hearing a complaint under S. 10, when they themselves have disposed of the appeal. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, they said that although normally it was not desirable that the same Bench which disposed of the appeal should hear the matter as it would occasion embarrassment on the part of the Advocate, as in the circumstances of the case there was no miscarriage of justice they were not inclined to advise His Majesty to grant special leave. In passing, the Judicial Committee observed that while they did not take the view that it was incompetent for the High Court to deal under Art 8, Letters Patent with charges of a criminal nature against a practitioner unless and until these have been investigated by a criminal Court, they regarded it as eminently fitting that in such cases the criminal prosecution should precede any disciplinary decision. This only indicates that charges of a criminal nature should not normally be the subject of an enquiry under Sec 10. It is this principle that was adopted by the Allahabad High Court in In Re: H, an Advocate,

The second case related to misappropriation and the amount was entrusted to the Advocate outside the Court, no doubt on behalf of his client. These cases, therefore, do not furnish a useful guide. The position in the present case is not analogous to that in those cases since the respondent is not charged with criminal offences. It cannot be postulated that as the professional misconduct consisted in withholding the amount collected by the Advocate in his professional capacity, the only remedy open to an aggrieved person is to bring a suit for the recovery of the money and that it could not form the subject of an enquiry under Sec. 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act. To give effect to that argument would be practically to make Sec. 10 nugatory and to deprive that Section of its full content. Admittedly, in this case, the amount was realised by the respondent in his capacity as an advocate. It will, therefore, be open to this Court to investigate into this matter u/s 10 of the Indian Bar Councils Act.

Learned Counsel for the respondent cited to us some cases, which lay down that a case of professional misconduct should be clearly proved. That proposition is incontestable. It is essential that the charge of professional miconduct should be brought home to the accused by cogent and unimpeachable evidence. In this case, that test has been satisfied and the charge has been fully substantiated. We, therefore, find the respondent guilty u/s 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act

Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, we think the ends of justice will be served by debarring the respondent from practice for a period of five years. We do not think it necessary to frame a fresh charge on another professional misconduct which consisted in his filing admittedly false fees certificates in view of the fact that he has been punished in this case.