SRI P BUCHI RAO PLEADER FIRST GRADE GUNTUR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Buchi Rao, a First Grade Pleader of Guntur, was indicted of professional misconduct in that he had drawn a sum of Rs. 414 on account of money due to his client, Annam Venkatanarayana of Sattenapalli, in O.S. No. 379 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntur, and retained the same without intimating and paying the said money to the said client. The said client, Annam Venkanarayana, filed a petition complaining against his pleader. The District Judge, Guntur, conducted an enquiry and acquitted the pleader of the said charge. The matter is before us under section 15 of the Legal Practitioners Act (XVIII of 1879). We have heard the learned Advocate-General and Sri Konda Kotayya for the pleader.

(2.) Sri Buchi Rao was appearing for Annam Venkatanarayana in a number of cases during the period from 1953 to 1957 when he was practising as a pleader at Guntur. In O.S. No. 379 of 1953 on the file of the District Munsif, Guntur, Annam Venkatanarayana was the successful decree-holder. His pleader Buchi Rao withdrew a sum of Rs. 414 for and on account of the decree-holder Annam Venkatanarayana on 15th May, 1954. The pleader appeared in a number of cases subsequently also for the said client. The present complaint relates to the said specific sum of Rs. 414 drawn by the pleader on I5th May, 1954. The complaint is that the pleader did not inform his client, Annam Venkatanarayana, about the receipt of the amount, that he came to know of the receipt of the money otherwise only in August, 1958, that on demand the pleader did not pay the said amount but had insulted him and that the said amount was due to him with interest. After the complaint was laid, the pleader sent the money by a telegraphic money order which amount the client received. He claimed, however, that he is entitled to interest also which he computed at Rs. 255-9-0.

(3.) The client gave registered notices, Exhibit A-24, dated 24th July, 1958 and Exhibit A-26, dated 29th July, 1958, to the pleader. In Exhibit A-24 he demanded the payment of his dues. To that there was a reply by the pleader, Exhibit A-17, dated 31st July, 1958, which did not repudiate the claim of the client. By Exhibit A-26 he demanded the specific sum of Rs. 414. To that there was no reply. The pleader submitted a written statement pleading that the client's clerk was present when the amount was received by him, that even by the time he withdrew the amount there was due to him fees in the suits and in other matters and that in the circumstances the client had instructed him to appropriate the fees due to him up to date and keep the balance with him for the purpose of further expenses to be incurred in future proceedings. He did not give a reply to the registered notice demanding the specific sum in the hope that better counsel would prevail with the client. He did not reply in sufficient detail to the earlier notice because he did not have with him the old accounts which he had left at Guntur, he having shifted to Hyderabad subsequently. He submitted that if the accounts are settled, nothing would be due to the client and that the client would be owing him money. He submitted that the petition was maliciously filed with the object of harassing him. Sri Konda Kotayya for the pleader has taken us at length through the evidence of the pleader and of the client (complainant) and the correspondence which passed between the parties.