In Re: Ramswarup Lal, a Mukhtar

Harries, C.J.—This is a reference by the learned District Judge of Saran in a matter relating to the conduct of one Ram-swarup Lal, a mukhtar. It appears that in Execution case No. 535 of 1939, a satisfaction petition was filed before the learned Munsif on 7th of July 1939, purporting to be by the decree-holder, Ramdhari Tiwari.

On the petition was a signature alleged to be that of Rarndhari''s son, Sheonandan Tiwari, acknowledging satisfaction and also an endorsement of identification of the decree-holder, Ramdhari Tiwari, by the mukhtar Ramswarup Lal. On 18th July 1939, however, the decree-holder, Ramdhari Tiwari, filed a petition in Court alleging that the so-called satisfaction petition with Sheonandan''s signature thereon was a forged one and that he had not received payment of any amount in satisfaction of the decree. I may observe that proceedings were commenced and inquiry made, and in due course the judgment-debtor, Dinanath Missir, was found guilty of presenting a forged petition of satisfaction.

As a result of the inquiries made by the learned Munsif before the criminal case was instituted, he was satisfied that the mukhtar, Ramswarup Lal, had been guilty of conduct which might well be an offence under the Legal Practitioners Act. Notice was served upon Ramswarup Lal to show cause why proceedings under that Act should not be instituted against him and in due course the learned Munsif heard evidence. The matter now comes before us on a reference from the learned District Judge of Saran.

In his view, the mukhtar was guilty of gross negligence, and his conduct in identifying the so-called decree-holder was grossly improper. In the view of the learned District Judge the mukhtar is guilty of gross professional misconduct, and the matter has been referred to this Court for orders.

Ramswarup Lal''s answer to the charge is this. He says that the judgment-debtor Dinanath Missir, a sadhu, had been known to him for fifteen years. The latter came to him and showed him a man who he said was Ramdhari Tiwari and asked the mukhtar to identify him as such. He was shown the petition of satisfaction which had already been completed, and the mukhtar identified the person shown to him as Ramdhari Tiwari, the decree-holder. It was said that Ramdhari was illiterate and could not sign and another person signed who purported to be Ramdhari Tiwari''s son, Sheonandan. The mukhtar did not take the precaution of taking the thumb-impression of the person who was said to be Ramdhari Tiwari.

As I have stated earlier, the real Ramdhari Tiwari informed the Court on 18th July that the petition of satisfaction was a forgery and that has since been held to be so by the criminal Courts. The question arises whether the part played by the mukhtar Ramswarup Lal in this case amounts to gross professional misconduct deserving of punishment. On the mukhtar''s own showing he did not know Ramdhari Tiwari, yet he identified a man as Ramdhari Tiwari merely because the judgment-debtor whom he knew said that the man was Ramdhari Tiwari. He made no other inquiry of any kind, and all that can be urged in his favour is that the judgment-debtor was a man known to the mukhtar for fifteen years or so.

It is urged that the mukhtar was justified in accepting Dinanath Missir''s statement that the man whom he was to identify was Ramdhari Tiwari; but in my judgment, a mukhtar who is asked to identify has no right to identify a person merely because the party asking him to identify tells him that a particular person is the person whom he is identifying. The very fact that it was the judgment-debtor who told the mukhtar the person whom he was asked to identify was the decree-holder should have put the mukhtar on his guard. The petition which was about to be filed was a petition of satisfaction, and the mukhtar should have taken care to satisfy himself that the person who posed as the decree-holder was in fact the decree-holder. The only information given to the mukhtar was given by a highly interested party, namely the judgment-debtor himself.

Further, the mukhtar did not insist on the person who posed as the decree-holder affixing his thumb-impression on the petition, and his only excuse for this is that the judgment-debtor assured him that he would take Eamdhari Tiwari''s thumb-impression.

The mukhtar Ramswarup Lal has been in practice for some 23 years, and it is clear from the judgment of the learned Munsif in the criminal case against Dinanath Misser that the mukhtar has for many years been regarded as a most respectable member of his profession. Further, the mukhtar in this case has not attempted to deny his want of care.

In evidence in the criminal case he stated frankly that he had identified the man as Ramdhari Tiwari merely because he was told so by Dinanath Missir. He has in short frankly admitted that he made no further investigation and that he had acted merely upon the assurance of the judgment-debtor. His frankness in the matter must be considered as a point in his favour. Further, there is nothing to suggest that this mukhtar is in the habit of identifying all and sundry without taking due precautions. This appears to be an isolated case in which the mukhtar acted improperly,

There can be no doubt that in the circumstances of this case the mukhtar should never have identified the man shown to him as Rmdhari Tiwari. His doing so without any inquiry and without any information beyond the bare statement of the judgment-debtor was conduct which this Court can never countenance. The mukhtar made no attempt whatsoever to satisfy himself from any independent source that the man was Ramdhari Tiwari and he ought never to have acted upon the mere statement of the judgment-debtor who was a highly interested party in the filing of the petition of satisfaction.

This Court has stated time and again that cases of mukhtars identifying improperly must be regarded severely; but, in the present case, the Court can take a more lenient view because of the mukhtar''s past record and because there is no suggestion that the mukhtar acted as he did for gain or in order to benefit the judgment-debtor in the case. The mukhtar does not appear to have had any dishonest motive, though, in the circumstances, he was grossly careless and negligent. We must take serious notice of his conduct but, in the circumstances, the Court does not think that it is necessary to impose any punishment by way of suspension. The mukhtar must take care in the future that he makes no identification such as the one now in question.

In all the circumstances, I would discharge this reference, but I would order the mukhtar to pay the costs of these proceedings which I would assess at four gold mohurs. This sum must be deposited in. Court within three months from today failing which the case will be listed before this Bench for orders.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.

Agarwala, J.

I agree.