KR AMARSINGH OF SABALPORE Vs. MADANMOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint by Kr. Amarsingh of Sa-balpore, Tehsil Parbatsar, of professional misconduct against Shri Madan Mohan, an advocate practising at Parbatsar,. District Nagaur.

(2.) The material facts are these. One Lalia Jat of village Laroli, Tehsil Parbatsar, had made a report, some time in April 1951, at the police station Parbatsar against the petitioner Kr. Amarsingh that he accompanied by some other persons had managed to steal several cart-loads of grass belonging to the complainant. Shortly after, the petitioner's Kamdar Nath-mal happened to go to Parbatsar and meet Shri Madan Mohan. During the course of conversation between Nathmal and Shri Madanmohan, the latter is alleged to have told Nathmal that he had very good relations with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parbatsar, who was his caste- fellow and hoped to hush up the complaint against Kr. Amarsingh provided a handsome bribe be paid to the Sub-Inspector through Shri Madan Mohan, otherwise the Thikana people would be in trouble. Thereupon Nathmal reported the whole matter to the petitioner, and it is said that the latter sent Rs. 150/- with Nathmal to Shri Madan Mohan for being paid as bribe to the Sub-Inspector in connection with Lalia's complaint. Nathmal went to Shri Madan Mohan and gave the sum of Rs. 150/- but the latter told Nathmal that the Sub-Inspector would not be satisfied with only Rs. 150/- and wanted Rs. 250/more. Nathmal then suggested to Shri Madan Mohan that the latter might write a letter to Kr. Amarsingh to that effect. Accordingly Shri Madan Mohan wrote the following which is Ex. 1.

(3.) Before proceeding further, we may point out that 011 22-10-1954, the petitioner submitted an application before the tribunal that he did not wish to proceed with his complaint and that it be dismissed as withdrawn inasmuch as he had preferred his complaint on the information supplied to him by his Kamdar Nathmal but that the latter had left his service and he had no confidence in him. He also stated in his application that he had no other evidence by which he could prove his complaint and that Shri Madan Mohan had also 110 objection to its withdrawal and would not raise any claim for costs. The tribunal did not accept this application and proceeded with the inquiry and in doing so they acted with perfect propriety.