- (1.) These proceedings before us arise out of a summons under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950 (as amended) issued to Shri 'M', who was originally an Agent of this Court and became an "Advocate on record" under the new rules of this Court which came into force on January 26, 1954. The summons issued calls upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. It arises on a complaint against him made to the Registrar of this Court by one Attar Singh on December 5, 1955. The substance of that complaint is as follows. The complainant was the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 1950 in this Court. Shri 'M' acted for him in connection with the appeal. A sum of Rs. 750 was supplied to Shri 'M' for the printing charges therein. This sum was deposited in due course in the Punjab High Court from whose judgment the appeal arose. There remained an unspent balance of Rs. 242-1-9 out of it. Shri 'M' withdrew that money from the High Court without the authority and the knowledge of the complainant. When, later on, the complainant became aware of it, he demanded refund of the same. Shri 'M' first denied receipt of the money, and thereafter refused to refund it (claiming, as appears later in the evidence, to have appropriated it towards the balance of fees said to be due to him). This complaint was in the usual course put up before his Lordship The Chief Justice who directed the Chamber-Judge, our learned brother, Bhagwati J., to enquire into it. Notices were issued there upon both to Shri 'M' and the complainant as well to three other Advocates of this Court who happened to be associated with that appeal. The enquiry before the learned Judge was fairly elaborate. Thereat, certain conclusions were reached on the basis of which charges were framed against Shri 'M'. The present summons, to Shri 'M' is with reference to those charges and this Bench has been constituted as a Special Bench under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules to deal with this matter. The learned Attorney- General has appeared, on notice, to assist the Court.
(2.) The rules of this Court do not provide for the procedure to be adopted in such cases, except to say that the Court shall issue, in the first instance, a summons returnable before the Court or before a Special Bench to be constituted by the Chief Justice to show cause against specified matters". There have been no precedents of this Court so far, to indicate the exact procedure to be adopted. The only previous case of professional misconduct on summons under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules which this Court had occasion p73 to deal with, was that reported In the matter of 'G', a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, 1955-1 S. C. R. 490: (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 557) (A). But that was a case in which action had been duly taken against the Advocate by the, Bombay High Court in connection with alleged misconduct arising within its jurisdiction. The summons issued to the Advocate by this Court was with reference to the same matter but as regards his position as a Supreme Court Advocate. (We understand that there were also two such cases in the Federal Court.) In the normal course, and in view of the rather elaborate enquiry which was held by our learned brother, Bhagwati J., we should have been content to confine ourselves to a mere hearing of arguments on the material recorded in that enquiry and come to our own conclusions with reference to the charges set out in the summons. But at the outset, objection was taken to our adopting such a course. The validity of the summons was questioned. It was said that under Order IV, Rule 30 of the Supreme Court Rules, the enquiry was to follow a summons which is contemplated as the first step therein. It was also said that the enquiry having been in Chambers, the statements of witnesses were not on oath. The learned Attorney- General was also inclined to think that there was force in the objections raised. After discussion in court with the Advocates on both sides we felt it desirable to refrain from any decision on the preliminary objection and to give the Agent complained against, the opportunity of a fresh enquiry in open Court on formulated charges. We accordingly directed by our orders dated May 9, 1956, and September 13, 1956, that evidence should be taken afresh before us and that procedure, substantially as in a warrant case, should be adopted as far as possible under the amended section 251-A of the p73 Criminal Procedure Code, subject to such modifications therein as may appear to be just and expedient in the circumstances of this case and without affecting the rules of natural justice. We treated the enquiry in Chambers as a preliminary enquiry and heard arguments on both sides with reference to the matter of that enquiry. We came to the conclusion that this was not a case for discharge at that stage. We accordingly reframed the charges framed by our learned brother, Bhagwati J., and added a fresh charge. No objection has been taken to this course. But it is as well to mention that, in our opinion, the terms of Order IV, Rule 30 of the S.C. Rules do not preclude us from adopting this course, including the reframing of, or adding to, the charges specified in the original summons, where the material at the preliminary enquiry justifies the same. The fresh enquiry before us in Court has proceeded with reference to the following charges as reframed and added to by us. "You, 'M', once an agent of this Court and thereafter an Advocate on record of this Court, are guilty of professional misconduct in that, Firstly, you having deposited a sum of Rs. 750 in the Punjab High Court towards the printing charges of the appeal paper book in Supreme Court Appeal No.12 of 1950 on behalf of your client, Attar Singh, and having the custody of the receipt issued by the Punjab High Court in respect of the same, applied for and obtained from the Punjab High Court without the authority of your client Attar Singh the balance of Rs. 242-1-9 in the month of March, 1952. Secondly, that after obtaining the sum of Rs. 242-1-9 as above from the Punjab High Court you retained that sum with you and did not return any part thereof to your client, Attar Singh, even though he frequently called upon you to do so and even though you are not entitled to recover from him by way of your professional charges anything beyond a sum of Rs. 72-15-6 by reason of your having agreed to receive a sum of only Rs. 100 towards your fee and no more. Thirdly, that you after receiving the sum of Rs. 242-1-9 in March 1952, retained the said sum, without any intimation to your client Attar Singh and without claiming any amount as due from him by way of fees to you and without lodging a bill for taxation against him for a period of over three years."
(3.) The undisputed facts are as follows. The complainant, Attar Singh, engaged a Senior Advocate of this Court, Sardar Raghbir Singh, who associated with himself Shri M. K. Madan as the Junior Advocate and Shri. 'N' as the Agent in the case. Criminal Appeal No.12 of 1950 was filed by all these three gentlemen with reference to a Vakalatnama executed by the complainant, Attar Singh, in favour of the Agent Shri 'M'. The complainant had to deposit a sum of Rs. 750 in the Punjab High Court for the preparation of the printed record in the appeal. Shri 'M' was entrusted with a bank draft for the said amount. He deposited it in the Punjab High Court. A receipt for the amount was issued in Shri 'M' s name. The printed record in the case was made ready and despatched to the Supreme Court about the end of December 1951. Thereafter Shri 'M' applied to the High Court for refund of the unspent balance. He received from the High Court in March 1952, the sum of Rs. 242-1-9 as the unspent balance. This amount has not been paid to the complainant by Shri 'M' who claims to have appropriated it towards fees said to be due to him.;