FULBASIA BANIAN Vs. G P AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case . proceedings have been taken against Mr. G. P. Agarwala, an Advocate of this Court, under Ss. 10 and 12, Ear Councils Act (Act 38 of 1926) on a petition of Mt. Fulbasia alleging that the said Advocate was guilty of professional misconduct. The petition of Mt. Fulbasia is dated 23-7-1953 and in this petition Mt. Pulbasia alleged that she had.engaged Mr. G. P. Agarwala to file a criminal revision in the High Court against the order of Mr. N. C. Ganguli, Magistrate of Chaibasa, and the appellate order of Mr. S. P. Singh, Sessions Judge of Manbhum in Cr. App. No. 71 of 1953. On 10-6-1953 Mt. Fulbasia had handed over to Mr. G. P. Agarwala the brief including certified copy of judgment pronounced by Mr. N. C. Ganguli, Magistrate of Chaibasa. The case of the petitioner is that she also had paid a sum of Rs. 47 to Mr. G. P. Agarwala on account of his fee and incidental expenses. The petitioner stated that the advocate actually filed the revisional application in the High Court on 11-6-1953 without copy of the judgment of Mr. N. C. Ganguli, the trying Magistrate. On 16-6-1953 the matter was placed before Misra J. who granted ten days' time for filing the copy of the trial Court judgment failing which the application would stand dismissed without further reference to a Bench. On 26-6-1953 the application stood dismissed by virtue of the peremptory order since the copy of the trial Court judgment had not been filed by the Advo- cate. The case of the" petitioner is that Mr. G. P. Agarwala intentionally withheld the copy of the trial Court judgment on account of which the application for revision was dismissed for default. The petitioner hence prayed that an enquiry should be made into the conduct of the Advocate and action should be taken against the Advocate for professional misconduct.

(2.) The petition of Mt. Fulbasia was sent by the High Court to the Bar Council for their comment. On 21-12-1953 the Secretary of the Bar Council replied stating that there was no case made out for enquiry into the conduct of the advocate. Thereafter the High Court appointed the District Judge of Manbhum to- make enquiry under Section 10(2), Bar Councils Act. Mr. G. P. Agarwala appeared before the District Judge of Manbhum and denied that the petitioner had handed over to him the certified copy of the trial Court judgment. He alleged that the petitioner produced certified copy of an order passed in some other case and informed him that she had no money to obtain certified copy of the trial Court judgment in this case. After the peremptory order was passed by Misra J. the Advocate wrote to the petitioner asking her to send the certified copy of judgment within a week's time. The petitioner, however, did not send the document nor did she send a reply to the letter of the Advocate and so the certified copy of the judgment could not be filed in the High Court in time and the revisional application was dismissed for default. The District Judge of Manbhum recorded also the oral statement made by Mr. G. P. Agarwala. The petitioner, however, was not present before the District Judge in the course of the enquiry. The petitioner had written a letter to the Distrct Judge asking him to hold the enquiry at Chaibasa but the prayer was rejected by the District Judge who thought that it was unreasonable. On 17-2-1954 the District Judge of Manbhum reported to the High Court stating that in his opinion the allegation of the petitioner has not been established and that Mr. Agarwala was not guilty of professional misconduct.

(3.) When this case was taken up for hearing on 24-8-1954 before the Full Bench the petitioner appeared in person on that date and filed a supplementary application together with additional documents including two original letters dated 25-6-1953 and 2-7-1953 written by Mr. Agarwala to the petitioner after the revisional application was dismissed by the High Court. As the petitioner was unrepresented the Full Bench requested Mr. Rash Behari Sinha to act as 'amicus curiae' and to present the petitioner's case.