Desai, J. - (1.) Though for all practical purposes, this appeal had become futile and inconsequential by sheer lapse of time, some life came to be infused into it because of a subsequent development which prompted the learned advocate to move this Court for hearing the appeal. The development and the event would be referred to at the relevant places in course of the judgment.
(2.) A disciplinary enquiry was initiated against appellant Narendra Singh, Advocate on the roll of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on the complaint of Sh. Chhotey Singh and Shri Faqir Chand. Broadly stated, the allegation was that the appellant was annoyed with one Sh. Udaibir Singh Saxena, who was, at the relevant time, Assistant Registrar, Kanungo and actuated with a desire to implicate him in a criminal case, he forged an application by ante-dating it from 6th July, 1968 to 3rd July, 1968. The application was in connection with acquisition of Bhumidari rights. Presumably, this led to the filing of Civil Suit No. 478/68 by complainant Chottey Singh against Smt. Sarbati Devi wife of his real brother and his father Khazan for cancellation of a gift deed alleged to have been executed by Khazan in favour of Smt. Sarbati Devi. the allegation was that taking advantage of the old age and mental infirmity of Khazan, appellant Narendra Singh, nephew of Khazan colluded with alleged donee in obtaining the gift deed. Further allegation was that the appellant had forged signature of Khazan in the Vakalatnama and consent application filed on behalf of Khazan in the suit. When Khazan realised that he was the victim of the machinations of the appellant, he filed an affidavit in the suit to which he was a party alleging therein that the appellant had himself forged the signatures on Vakalatnama and consent application. On receipt of this application the learned Munsif before whom the suit was pending issued notice to the appellant to show cause why appropriate action be not taken against him. However, before any order could be made in the proceedings, Khazan died and it appears that the learned Munsif dropped the proceedings, Subsequently Chhotey Singh and Faqir Chand filed a complaint against the appellant before the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee and that is how the matter came up before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
(3.) Three charges were framed against the appellant. They may be extracted: "(1) Whether the Advocate concerned got the gift deed dated 10-7-68 executed by Khazan Singh in favour of Smt. Sarbati Devi, his daughter-in-law against his instructions If so, is the Advocate concerned guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct (2) Whether the Advocate concerned got a forged Vakalathnama and written statement through Sri Mahesh Chandra Mittal, Advocate filed on behalf of Khazan Singh in Suit No. 746 of 1968 of the Court, of the Munsif, Bulandshahr If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or other misconduct (3) Whether the Advocate concerned filed an application said to be antedated As 3-7-68 on 6-7-68 and falsely got Sri Udai Bir Singh, Asstt. Registrar Kanungo arrested, challaned and prosecuted If so, is he guilty of professional misconduct or any other conduct - Evidence was led before the disciplinary committee. It may be mentioned that the appellant did not choose to enter the witness box to deny or contradict the allegations against him. This has some relevance because after 'this Appeal was heard for some time, Miss Thomas, learned advocate for the appellant, sought an adjournment to file an affidavit of the appellant and one Shri Mahesh Chand Mittal who had appeared for Khazan in the suit filed by Chhotey Singh. The disciplinary committee observed that Chhotey Singh, one of the co-complainants had moved an application on October 16, 1970 requesting the committee to delete the name of Chhotey Singh from the array of co-complainants. Faqir Chand prosecuted the complaint. Chhotey Singh went to the extent of offering himself as a witness for the appellant. The disciplinary committee discarded the evidence of Chhotey Singh observing that earlier he had filed an affidavit dated September, 10, 1970 supporting the allegation in the complaint and thereafter it was on October 16, 1970 that he. moved application Exh. D-1 praying for deletion of his name from the array of co-complainants. Taking note of this fact, the disciplinary committee Observed that evidence of Chhotey Singh cannot be relied upon in view of his earliar affidavit and in view of the fact that he is a near-relation of the appellant and does not appear to be a votary of truth. There was thus no evidence on behalf of the appellant explaining circumstances appearing in the evidence of the complainant and the documents placed on record. The disciplinary committee did not record finding in respect of each of three heads of charges separately. However in respect of third head of charge, the disciplinary committee observed that 'it has not been established to our satisfaction that the advocate concerned had got Shri Udai Bir Singh implicated in any criminal case as alleged by the complainant but his conduct as regard the gift deed executed by Shri Khazan Singh, his vakalatnama and written statement filed in the case instituted by Chhotey Singh for cancellation of the gift deed remain unexplained'. This statement was construed to mean that the appellant was exonerated in respect of the third head of charge and found guilty in respect of the first two heads of charges. The disciplinary committee imposed a punishment of suspension for a period of six months from practice as an advocate. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Bar Council of India and this appeal came up before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India held that affidavit filed by Khazan Singh in the civil suit filed by Chhotey Singh was vague and does not conform to the requirement of the affidavit. on the question of verification statement on personal knowledge and therefore it did not furnish reliable evidence against the appellant. The disciplinary committee was not inclined to attach any importance to the issue of the notice by the learned Munsif calling upon the appellant to show cause why appropriate action should not be taken against him. The affidavit of Chhotey Singh before the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council was rejected on the identical ground that the verification is not according to the rules of Bar Council of India prescribing the procedure to be followed by disciplinary committee of State Bar Council. It was further observed that it must be rejected on the short ground that the averments therein made are not shown to be to the personal knowledge of the deponent. On this ground, the finding of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council on charges 1 and 2 was reversed.;