Modi, J. - (1.) This is a complaint by Kr. Amarsingh of Sa-balpore, Tehsil Parbatsar, of professional misconduct against Shri Madan Mohan, an advocate practising at Parbatsar,. District Nagaur.
(2.) The material facts are these. One Lalia Jat of village Laroli, Tehsil Parbatsar, had made a report, some time in April 1951, at the police station Parbatsar against the petitioner Kr. Amarsingh that he accompanied by some other persons had managed to steal several cart-loads of grass belonging to the complainant. Shortly after, the petitioner's Kamdar Nath-mal happened to go to Parbatsar and meet Shri Madan Mohan. During the course of conversation between Nathmal and Shri Madanmohan, the latter is alleged to have told Nathmal that he had very good relations with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parbatsar, who was his caste- fellow and hoped to hush up the complaint against Kr. Amarsingh provided a handsome bribe be paid to the Sub-Inspector through Shri Madan Mohan, otherwise the Thikana people would be in trouble. Thereupon Nathmal reported the whole matter to the petitioner, and it is said that the latter sent Rs. 150/- with Nathmal to Shri Madan Mohan for being paid as bribe to the Sub-Inspector in connection with Lalia's complaint. Nathmal went to Shri Madan Mohan and gave the sum of Rs. 150/- but the latter told Nathmal that the Sub-Inspector would not be satisfied with only Rs. 150/- and wanted Rs. 250/more. Nathmal then suggested to Shri Madan Mohan that the latter might write a letter to Kr. Amarsingh to that effect. Accordingly Shri Madan Mohan wrote the following which is Ex. 1. "My Dear Kr. Sahib, The S. I. P. is not prepared to take Rs. 150/-He wants more. Kindly let me know whether we should pay more or stop payment. Hoping to hear soon from you. Sincerely, (Sd.) Madan Mohan." Nathmal handed over this letter which bears no date to Kr. Amarsmgh in due course. Amarsingh was, however, not prepared to pay anything more and says to have seat Nathmal to get the sum of Rs. 150/-, which had already been sent, back from Shri Madan Mohan. Nathmal went taut Shri Madan Mohan refused to return the money and said that he would talk the matter over with the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner alleges to have met Shri Madan Mohan at Parbatsar and asked him to return the money. Shri Madan Mohan said that he "had already paid Rs. 150/- to the Sub-Inspector of Policer and that he could not return it. Thereupon the petitioner filed this complaint on 9-8-1951, in this Court praying that the conduct of Shri Madan Mohan was criminal and highly unprofessional and called for suitable action. The reply of Shri Madan Mohan was a complete denial of the story of bribery although he admitted to have written the letter to the petitioner, which has been quoted above in extenso. The story put forward by Shri Madan Mohan is that he had written the said letter under entirely different circumstances and those circumstances were briefly these. According to Shri Madan Mohan the Sub-Inspector of Police had a cow and Thakur Berisal-singh of Sabalpore, father of Kr. Amarsingh, had seen it with the Thakur of Maglana, and Thakur Berisalsingh liked the cow and had written to Shri Madan Mohan that if the Sub-Inspector was willing to sell it for Rs. 150/-, he would be glad to purchase it at that price. (See Ex. A-l dated Mali Sudi 3 Smt. 2006, corresponding to 21st January, 1950 from Thakur Berisalsingh to Shri Madan Mohan). The Sub-Inspector, however, wanted more money for the cow and was not willing to part with it for Rs. 150/- and this, according to Shri Madan Mohan, was the reason how he happened to write Ex. 1, and he explained that he wrote the latter to Kr. Amarsingh', as the Thakur had said that he was likely to go out on a short pilgrimage and might take some time to return. Shri Madan Mohan's version is that he had sent this letter through one Lalsingh. In support of his case, Shri Madan Mohan has also produced a further letter from Thakur Berisalsingh dated Maha Sudi 9, Smt. 2006 (corresponding to 27th January, 1950) in which he stated that he was not prepared to pay more than Rs. 150/- for the cow and that the deal might be abandoned. Shri Madan Mohan further pleaded that his relations with Kr. Amarsmgh were considerably strained, as the relations of Kr. Amarsingh with his father Thakur Berisalsingh were not happy and Shri Madan Mohan was standing counsel for Thikana Sabalpore and had firmly stood by the Thakur during all these years; and he further stated to have been responsible for having given an award against Kr. Amarsingh in some dispute between him on the one side and his father and his younger brother on the other. He further stated that he had appeared against Kr. Amarsingh in certain cases, and the present complaint was the result of the animosity which Kr. Amarsingh bore against him. In those circumstances this complaint was referred to a tribunal of the Bar Council consisting of three members. The tribunal after having made the necessary inquiry, have sent in their report. The majority of the tribunal were of the opinion that the charge of professional misconduct framed against Shri Madan Mohan has not been proved and, therefore, the complaint deserved to be dismissed; while one member came to the conclusion that Shri Madan Mohan engaged himself in the negotiations for the payment of bribe to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Parbatsar, and that this amounted to professional misconduct on his part.
(3.) Before proceeding further, we may point out that 011 22-10-1954, the petitioner submitted an application before the tribunal that he did not wish to proceed with his complaint and that it be dismissed as withdrawn inasmuch as he had preferred his complaint on the information supplied to him by his Kamdar Nathmal but that the latter had left his service and he had no confidence in him. He also stated in his application that he had no other evidence by which he could prove his complaint and that Shri Madan Mohan had also 110 objection to its withdrawal and would not raise any claim for costs. The tribunal did not accept this application and proceeded with the inquiry and in doing so they acted with perfect propriety.;