J.D.Sharma, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against an order dated the 31st July 1961 of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, convicting the appellant Dharampal under section 477 I.P.C. and the appellant Prayag Das under section 477 read with Section 109 I.P.C. and sentencing them to four years' rigorous imprisonment each.
(2.) On the 9th October 1947 Dharampal filed a complaint against K. N. Bhargava and his son B. N. bhargava charging them with having committed offences under Sections 325, 342 and 392 I.P.C. The accused in that case were discharged on the 23rd July 1949. On the application of K. N. Bhargava the court concerned tiled a case under Sections 193 and 211 I. P. C., against Dharampal and Seth Madan Lal in whose service Dharampal was. K. N. Bhargava and his son also filed suit No. 25 of 1950 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/- as damages for malicious prosecution against Dharampal and Madan Lal. Madan Lal died during the pendency of the suit. The suit came up for hearing before the Civil Judge, Sri R. C. Saxena on the 16th December 1957. There was some talk of compromise between the parties taut no compromise was arrived at. The suit was adjourned to the 17th December 1957 and the Civil Judge started recording the evidence of the plaintiffs. It was adjourned till the next day, i.e., the 18th December 1957. Some evidence of the plaintiffs was recorded before lunch. When the Presiding Officer returned to the court after lunch Dharampal presented an application the material contents of which as reproduced in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge were: "Wan bilkul jhoonta hai. Mujey na mara peeta, na koi zabardasti loota, jo bilkul jhoonta hai. Men gharib admi nun. Mujhey maf kia jaway. Men 500/- panchso rupaye Sri Kedar Nath ko ada karoonga, Muqadma bilkul khatam kardia jaway." At that time the plaintiffs and the parties counsel were not present. After reading the application the Civil Judge asked Dharampal if be had understood the contents thereof Dharampal told the court that lie was a poor man and wanted to get rid of litigation. The court took up an appeal for hearing. During the hearing of that appeal the accused Prayag Das who was the counsel for Dnarampal appeared in court. The Civil Judge told him that his client Dharampal had made in his application the admissions to which he was opposed. On reading the application Prayag Das took the Court's permission to take it outside the court room to consult his client. The Civil Judge permitted him to do so. There was some consultation between the two accused outside the court room. Prayag Das told Dharampal that it was not in his interest to make the admissions such as he had done in the application and he handed ever the application to him. Dharampal tore the application into pieces which were thrown by him under an Ashok tree. It appears that these pieces were collected by B. N. Bhargava (P. W. 3) and passed on to his father. The parties appeared in the court of the Civil Judge and Prayag Das informed the court that Dharampal did not want to enter into a compromise and when asked about the application, he said that it had been torn into pieces by his client Dharampal. The Civil Judge drew up a brief statement of the facts in the order sheet. In spite of the application being torn into pieces, Dharampal agreed to pay Rs. 500/-as damages and the parties compromised the suit and a compromise decree was passed.
(3.) On the 20th December 1957 K. N. Bhargava made an application to the Civil Judge alleging professional misconduct on the part of Prayag Das in having handed ever the application to Dharampal and asking him to tear it off. After certain proceedings the Civil Judge made a report to this Court as Prayag Das happened to be an Advocate. On the 4th March 1958 Prayag Das filed a lengthy rejoinder in this Court denying that he had asked Dharampal to tear the application into pieces or had committed any professional misconduct. A Full Bench of this Court held on the 19th March 1958 that the facts disclosed were insufficient to justify the institution of the proceedings for professional misconduct against the accused.;