- (1.) THIS is a complaint by the petitioners Mahaveerchand and Shantichand of jodhpur through their Aam-mukhtar Rajmal for professional misconduct against shri Bhanwarlal, an advocate practising at Barmer.
(2.) THE allegations on which the complaint is founded may be briefly stated as follows. It is alleged that the petitioners (who were decree-holders) had initiated proceedings under Ss. 78 and 79 of the Marwar Tenancy Act against Thakur himmatsingh of Jasol (judgment-debtor) with respect to the income of certain villages as the tenants were recalcitrant and had declined to pay the Hasil. Consequently, Shri S. N. Modi, standing counsel of the petitioners, along with rajmal, and Surajrnal another Aam-mukhtar of the petitioners, went to Barmer to engage counsel to conduct the proceedings on behalf of the petitioners and briefed the respondent Shri Bhanwarlal. It was alleged that Shri Sultan-mal pleader was also engaged to assist Shri Bhanwarlal. One Rughnathmal was in due course appointed as an Ameen by the Tehsildar to realise the Hasil but his remuneration was not fixed by the Tehsildar. This Ameen is alleged to have made a total realisation of Rs. 2526/87-from the tenants of the jagirdar, and out of this amount the Ameen deducted a sum of Rs. 427/8/- on account of his pay and travelling and other expenses, and produced the balance of rs. 2099/- in the Court on 17th July 1955. Shri Bhanwarlal then having presented an application on behalf of the petitioners for the receipt of this amount, the Tehsildar ordered it to be paid to him and Shri bhanwarlal actually received it. Shri Bhanwarlal admittedly deducted a sum of Rs. 388713/- out of the aforesaid amount. The amount of Rs. 388/13/- consisted of two items (1) Rs. 257/13/- which Shri Bhanwarlal is said to have paid to the ameen on 23rd May. 1955, and (2) Rs. 131/- which Shri Bhanwarlal further paid to the latter on 18th July, 1955, as the balance of the remuneration which remained due to him. For the balance Shri Bhanwarlal sent a cheque of Rs. 1710/3/- to the petitioners. The grievance of the petitioners is that Shri Bhan-warlai did not pay the aforementioned sums totalling Rs. 388713/- to Ameen Rughnathmal and that he had misappropriated the money,. and in order to obtain wrongful gain for himself, he had manufactured the story of having made these payments to the Ameen from his. own pocket. It was further contended that even if the alleged payments had been made, they were made without the petitioners' permission and without the order of the tehsildar, and, consequently, the respondent was guilty of bad faith. or of grossly negligent conduct in the discharge-of his professional duties towards the petitioners. It was suggested that the respondent should have informed the Tehsildar that he had already paid a sum of Rs. 2577137- to the-Ameen, or for that matter, that a further amount of Rs. 1317- was going to be paid to him and should have asked for adjustment of the monies paid to the Ameen against the bill of Rs. 427787which the latter drew out of the total amount collected by him, namely, Rs. 252678/ -.
(3.) THIS complaint was referred under the order of the Chief Justice to a tribunal of the-Bar Council. The report of the tribunal is before us. The learned members of the tribunal have come to the conclusion that no case of professional misconduct has been established against the respondent Shri Bhanwarlal, although in the opinion of the learned members it might be said that "shri Bhanwarlal should have been more cautious and alert and should have contacted the clients before hastening to make the payment to the ameen, and had he been so, he would not have been dragged into these proceedings of professional misconduct. " The charges framed by the Bar Council were two in number. The first charge, briefly put was that instead of remitting the full amount to the petitioners, Shri bhanwarlal had sent Rs. 1710/3/- only by a cheque dated 19th July, 1955, and retained and appropriated the balance of Rs. 388/13/- in an unauthorised manner and that to cover up this act of his, he manufactured the story of having made two payments totalling Rs. 388/13/- to the Ameen when in fact no such payments had been made to the latter. The second charge was that alternatively and in the event that Shri Bhanwarlal had made the payment of Rs. 388/13/- to Ameen Rughnathmal, such payments had been made by Shri Bhanwarlal without any order of the Court, and that he had acted carelessly and negligently in not objecting to the deduction of Rs. 427/8/- by the Ameen on 14th July. 1955, on account of his pay, expenses, etc. , and that he should have informed the Tehsildar that the Ameen had already been paid a sum of Rs. 257/13/-, and that similarly Shri Bhanwarlal had acted negligently in making the payment of Rs. 131/- on 18th July, 1955, and consequently,, he had made himself open to the charge of professional misconduct punishable under Section 10 of the Bar Councils Act.;