PANDURANG DATTATRAYA KHANDEKAR Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF MAHARASHTRA BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The disciplinary proceedings out of which this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) has arisen were initiated on a complaint made by a group of 12 advocates practising in the two courts of Sub-Divisional Magistrates in the Collectorate of Poona alleging various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant P. D. Khandekar and one A. N. Agavane. The proceedings stood transferred to the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Act. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by its order dated April 23, 1976 held both the appellant and A. N. Agavane guilty of professional midsconduct and directed that the appellant be suspended for a period of four months from June 1, 1976 and Agavane for a period of two months therefrom. This Court by its order dated September 24, 1976 admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the suspension of order.

(2.) First as to the facts. The complainants alleged various acts of professional misconduct against the appellant and Agavane. According to them, the appellant and Agavane sometimes impersonated as other advocates for whom the briefs were meant and at times they directly approached the clients and adopted questionable methods charging exorbitant fees. The State Bar Council referred to four specific charges relating to them, two of impersonation as A. D. Ghospurkar and N. L. Thatte and depriving these gentlemen of the briefs meant for them The State Bar Council held that these two charges have not been substantiated and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has not gone into them. Both the Disciplinary Committees of the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council however found the appellant and Agavane to be guilty of giving improper legal advice and held the charge of professional misconduct proved, but having regard to the fact that they were junior members of the bar, the Disciplinary Committee has taken a lenient view and passed the sentence indicated above. In dealing with the question of punishment to be imposed on them, the Disciplinary Committee observes:

(3.) The gravamen of the charge against the appellant and Agavane relates to the giving of improper legal advice on two specific counts, namely:(1) On January 7, 1974 the appellant and Agavane are alleged to have got the remarrjage of a couple S. B. Potdar and Smt. Leelawati Dhavale performed although their divorce was not legal. The accusation is that the appellant and Agavane induced Potdar and Smt. Dhavale to part with Rs. 100/- towards their professional fee on the faith of an assurance that the .affidavit sworn by them before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Poona to the effect that they had divorced their respective spouses and had got married at Poona on January 7, 1974 as per Hindu rites would be sufficient proof of their marriage. (2) On February 22, 1974 the appellant and Agavane drew up an affidavit containing a recital that Smt. Sonubai Girju Valekar of Loni Bhapkar, Tehsil Baramati, District Poona had made a gift of her lands to her grand-daughter Smt. Mangala Ramesh Ghorpade. The charge is that she had met all the lawyers except these two and all of them advised her to give the market value of the land intended to be gifted and pay ad valorem stamp duty thereon indicating the amount of stamp duty and the registration charges payable, but these two lawyers told her that she should not unnecessarily spend a large amount over the stamp duty and registration charges and they would instead have the work done within an amount of Rs. 50/- which was finally settled at Rs. 45/-. The charges levelled against the appellant and Agavane are serious enough and if true in a case like the present, the punishment has to be deterrent, but the question still remains whether the charges have been proved. The appellant virtually pleads that the case against him is a frame-up. As to the incident of January 7, 1974, the appellant pleads that the affidavit sworn by Potdar and Smt. Dhavale was prepared on their instructions as they represented that they had divorced their respective spouses and expressed, that they wanted to marry each other on that very day and leave Poona. His case is that they represented that the priest was insisting. upon an affidavit as regards their divorce as a. precaution before performing their marriage and therefore they wanted to swear an affidavit to that effect. Regarding the incident of February 22, 1974, there was a complete denial that the appellant drew up an affidavit containing a recital that Smt. Sonubai had made a gift of her lands to her grand daughter Smt. Mangala which he handed over to her on receipt of Rupees 45/- as his professional fee.