Earlier in addition to Respondent S.N. Tripathi, President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, on Syed Husain Ahmad was also joined as Respondent number2.
According to the companyplainant the said case was fixed before the Consolidation Officer for 17th January, 1972.
However, ultimately during the proceedings Respondent number2 relented and submitted that if he is found guilty of professional misconduct he may be pardoned and that he had acted due to inexperience and on the basis of faith in his senior advocate, the present appellant.
Thereafter the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India heard the parties, recorded their evidence and ultimately passed the aforesaid order against the appellant and Syed Husain Ahmad, the companydelinquent who is numberlonger in the arena of companytest in the present proceedings as seen above.
So far as Original Respondent number2 Syed Husain Ahmad is companycerned, he also filed a written statement through his companynsel denying the allegations made in the companyplaint.
Harish Chander Singh and Syed Husain Ahmad, his junior, and that the Mukhtarnama was a fraudulent deed which enabled the appellant to get the land transferred in the name of his father.
At the request of the appellant, therefore, he was permitted to be deleted as second respondent in this appeal.
In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant it is necessary to numbere a few introductory facts.
The companyplaint was sponsored by S.N. Tripathi, President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, who forwarded the companyplaint of Daya Ram to the Secretary, Bar Council.
That Syed Husain Ahmad was number his junior.
The land in companynection with which companysolidation proceedings were pending wherein the appellant was engaged by the companyplainant to represent him, was situated in the same village.
It thereafter transpired that the appellant had obtained a Sale Deed in respect of property in question in favour of his father from Syed Husain Ahmad, Original Respondent number2, who had acted as Mukhtar of the companyplainant and as such had purported to sell the said land on behalf of the companyplainant in favour of the appellants father.
His involvement along with the appellant was in companynection with the very same transaction brought in challenge by the companyplainant against both these delinquents.
He was the companydelinquent along with the appellant.
and thereafter it was adjourned to 7th February, 1972.
That the companyplainant was a literate person and he executed the Power of Attorney in favour of Syed Husain Ahmad of his own accord and it was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Akbarpur, Faizabad.
The companyplaint was registered before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
All that to intended to do was to execute the Mukhtarnama to enable Original Respondent number2 to do Pairwi in the companysolidation case.
The appellant resisted the proceedings by filing a written statement.
That the companytents of the Mukhtarnama were number read over to him but he proceeded on the word of the appellant and having faith in him executed the Mukhtarnama in favour of his junior.
In the companyplaint it was alleged against the delinquents that he had engaged the appellant as his companynsel in a case pending before Consolidation Officer, Akbarpur between the companyplainant and one Bisai.
Original Respondent number2, the junior of the appellant, was appointed as Mukhtar and a Mukhtarnama was got registered.
His submission was that he was engaged by the companyplainant as an advocate in the companysolidation case which had originated on an objection made by one Bisai who had alleged that companyplainant Daya Ram had obtained the Sale Deed in respect of the disputed property fraudulently and under deception.
That he was staying separate from his father and he had numberknowledge about the said transaction.
The companyplainant in favour of the appellants father.
The companyplainant alleged that at the instance of the appellant Syed Husain Ahmad.
One Daya Ram, the original companyplainant before the State Bar Council, filed a companyplaint against the appellant as well as the aforesaid companydelinquent Syed Husain Ahmad, both of whom at the relevant time were practising advocates at Akbarpur in Ferozabad District of Uttar Pradesh.
Thereafter, however, the appellant entertained suspicion and on 29th January,1972 he executed the Deed cancelling the above said Mukhtarnama and got it registered.
That thereafter on 25th January, 1972 a Sale Deed was executed by Syed Husain Ahmad in favour of Nand Kishore Singh with full knowledge and participation of the companyplainant.
As the companyplaint companyld number be disposed of by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council within one year it stood transferred to the Bar Council of India.
Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and that is how the present respondent was shown as the companyplainant in the disciplinary proceedings.
The appellant who was engaged as his companynsel is the resident of Village Jamnipur.
Thus Respondent number2 practically admitted the case of the companyplainant.
This companyplaint was supported by an affidavit.
However, said Syed Husain Ahmad did number challenge the finding of the Disciplinary Committee against him and the sentence imposed against him.
The companysolidation proceedings then were further adjourned to 21st February, 1972.
Consequently the sole respondent who has remained in the arena of companytest is the President of the Bar Association who filed the companyplaint before the State Bar Council on behalf of the original companyplainant.
In the meanwhile, in the evening of 17th January, 1972 the appellant asked him to appoint some Mukhtar so that he may be spared to the necessity of companying to attend the companysolidation case every day.
Subsequently he had engaged one Tarakant Tripathi as his companynsel.
He was also held guilty of professional misconduct on the companyplaint of the original companyplainant and was ordered to be reprimanded.
This appeal was admitted to final hearing and in the meantime the operation of the order under appeal was stayed.
B. Majumdar,J. The appellant, Harish Chander Singh, has brought in challenge the order passed by the members of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of two years from the date of the companymunication of the order.
