- (1.) Mr. Shiva Narain Jafa, an Advocate practising at Budaun, has appealed against the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court suspending him from practice as an Advocate for a period of six months under the provisions of the Indian Bar Councils Act.
(2.) It appears that in 1942 one Ganesh was prosecuted before Mr. N P. Sanyal, Assistant Sessions Judge. Budaun, under S. 376, Penal Code, read with S.511. Penal Code, for an attempt to commit rape upon a Chamar woman called Himman. His defence was a denial of the offence and the improbability of his attempting such an offence owing to his physical defect. He attributed his implication in the offence to his enemies. Ganesh was convicted and sentenced to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment, but his sentence was reduced on appeal by the High Court to one year's rigorous imprisonment. Mr. Jafa represented Ganesh at the trial. It was in connection with his conduct as an Advocate in the trial that Mr. Sanyal complained to the High Court for taking disciplinary action against Mr. Jafa for professional misconduct. The High Court directed the District Judge. Pudaun under S. 10(2). Bar Councils Act to hold an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Jafa with reference to the allegations made in Mr. Sanyal's complaint. The District Judge framed several charges and reported as a result of his findings that Mr. Jafa should not be allowed to continue as a member of the Bar.
(3.) The main charges are stated to be three. Under the first charge there are eleven subsidiary charges indicated by letters A to K of which seven refer to the Advocate's conduct in connection with the trial of Ganesh in the Court of Mr. Sanyal. The second charge is to the effect that the Advocate was in the habit of putting scandalous and obscene questions to women witnesses and is based partly upon questions put to Himman in the witness box and to a witness in another case in which action proposed to be taken against the Advocate was subsequently dropped. The third charge is that he deliberately raised groundless personal issues between himself and his clients on the one side and the presiding officers of courts on the other so as to pick up quarrels with them with the object of bullying and brow-beating them. The High Court acquitted the, Advocate of all the charges, save two, described as I-A and I-F.;