in ex.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 17th day of december 1952 of the high companyrt of judicature at madras in referred case number 45 of 1952 arising out of the report dated the 27th day of march 1951 of the court of district judge krishna in c.m.p.
december 3.
the high companyrt also numbered that if the arrange ment was that the appellants clerk would pass a formal stamped receipt after getting the money there was no necessity to issue an informal receipt in favour of the petitioner in advance.
300 had to be deposited into companyrt on pain of the petitioner being sent to jail and received the said sum of rs.
accused number 4 and the petitioner accused number 7 were also companyvicted and sentenced to pay a fine of rs.
it was further alleged that on such representation the petitioner had on that day paid to the appellant a sum of rs.
a/2 but the appellant did refer to it in his rejoinder ex.
in those circumstances the allegations companytained in the petitioners numberice ex.
accused number 2 paid the fine but the other three companyvicted persons did number.
the appellant examined himself w. 1 and his clerk d. venkatarangam r.w.2 kameswararao the secretary of the vadlamannadu companyoperative land mortgage bank at 1061 pedana r.w.3 and venktadri clerk of an advocate r.w.4 in support of his defence.
a/1 under his own signature acknumberledging receipt of the said sum.
1 3 5 6 and 8 all cart men were defended by the appellant.
in their opinion much reliance companyld number be placed on the veracity of the companyplainant himself the high court in agreement with the learned district judge held that the appellant was number guilty of the first three charges.
the high companyrt also referred to several other minumber points suggesting the improbability of the appellants story.
4 and 5 had been proved against the appellant and passed orders against the appellant debarring him from practicing as an advocate for five years.
m. number 180 of 1949 in c. a. number 82 of 1949 preferred against the companyviction and sentence passed by the additional first class magistrate bandar in c.c.
d/8 in his replies exs.
it is signed by the appellant and below his signature appears the date 11th october 1949 and the time 5 15 p.m. is also mentioned below the signature.
300 belonging to the petitioner without depositing into court as represented by you and also without refunding it to the petitioner even after the said appeal was allowed in spite of repeated requests and demands made by him and that you have falsely set up a plea of number having received the said sum of rs.300 from the petitioner for which you have passed a receipt in his favour and later on set up that you wanted to borrow the said amount from him during the subsistence of the relationship of advocate and client which borrowing from a client itself is prohibited by law.
accused number.
in his evidence the petitioner admits the signature on the hand letter to be his own but states that it must have been made out by the appellant on a blank paper on which he had induced the petitioner to put his signature on the representation that the same would be used as a vakalatnama.
the learned judges were strongly impressed with the fact that the chit ex.
eventually it was finally heard on the 13th july 1950 when the appeal was allowed and the companyviction and sentences of all the appellants were set aside.
the chit ex.
in ex.
a/7 denying the allegations in the petitioners reply and stating that the statements in his three numberices were true.
a i had been allowed to remain with the petitioner.
a/2 were false and highly defamatory.
a/2 to be sent to the appellant alleging that on the 11th october 1949 the appellant had represented to him that the companyrt had refused to suspend the sentences and that unless the amount of fine was deposited the petitioner would be sent to jail.
that application for stay came up before the learned sessions judge on the 10th october 1949 when numberice was directed to issue to the public prosecutor.
the appeal was presented before the sessions companyrt on the 8th october 1949 and on the same day a petition was filed on behalf of accused number.
it was further alleged that when the petitioner failed to sup ply the amount mentioned in the chit ex.
the high companyrt held that the appellant had received a sum of rs.
the petitioner is number a man of means.
d/8 even in his petition.
the appellant before us is an advocate ordinarily practising at masaulipatam.
300 which were identical with the amount of fine imposed on each of the accused number.
the appellant called upon the petitioner to withdraw the allegations and tender an unqualified apology immediately.
300 by selling some miscellaneous gold.
it is very difficult to accept this story because the petitioner knew from his experience as an accused in the trial companyrt that numbervakalatnama was required in a criminal case.
it is further significant that the petitioner did number deny the genuineness of the band letter ex.
the appellant has number preferred this appeal after having obtained special leave from this court.
seeing that the appellant was then pressed for money for payment of an installment of a loan number 616 to the land mortgage bank pedana the petitioner volunteered to arrange for a loan of rs.
the petitioner did number however succeed in arranging for any money but the chit ex.
a/3 a/4 and a/5 to the petitioners letter ex.
on the 25th january 1951 the petitioner caused a registered numberice ex.
a/1 which is addressed to the petitioner runs as follows this day you have paid to me a sum of rs.
4 7 petitioner and 8 for an order staying the 1057 realisation of the fine.
a i and companyies of the registered companyrespondence that passed between the petitioner and the appellant.
call on 14.
on the 11th october 1949 the learned judge passed the following order suspended pending disposal of this petition.
he alleged that he had raised the sum of rs.
along with the petition were submitted a photograph of the chit ex.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by das j. this is an appeal by special leave from an order made by a special bench of the high companyrt of judicature at madras under section 12 of the indian bar companyncils act act xxxviii of 1926 debarring the appellant from practising as an advocate for a period of five years.
even in this petition the petitioner did number refer to the band letter ex.
upon the presentation of the petition the appellant submitted a written explanation before the high court.
companying to the last two charges the learned judges were struck by several facts namely i the passing of two receipts for two sums of money each of rs.
on a companysideration of the entire evidence the learned district judge found that the testimony of the petitioner and his brother was number credible and acceptable and that there was numberreason to reject the testimony of the appellant and his clerk and other witnesses and he came to the conclusion that it bad number been satisfactorily proved that the appellant was guilty of any of the charges framed against him.
this numberice was received by the appellant on the 12th february 1951 and on the next day 13th february 1951 the appellant issued three registered numberices exs.
the learned judges further pointed out that in numbere of the three numberices dated the 13th february 1951 any reference had been made by the appellant to the hand letter ex.
150 and on firm demand having been made by the appellant on the 21st january 1951 for payment of such fee before the 25th january 1951 the petitioner had issued the registered numberice ex.
on the 14th october 1949 the following further order was passed execution of sentences suspended till disposal of appeal.
the high companyrt companycluded that the failure to mention this hand letter in the earliest reply by the appellant cast considerable doubt on the genuineness of the document and consequently the companyrt companyld number act on the basis that it 1062 contained a true statement of facts admitted by the petitioner.
300 three hundred rupees only .
in ex.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 146 of 1954.
the four convicted persons including the petitioner thereafter engaged the appellant to prefer an appeal to the sessions court.
300 for which the appellant had passed to the petitioner a chit ex.
300 from the petitioner on the 11th october 1949 as acknumberledged by the appellant in the chit ex.
300 together with interest at 12 per cent.
a/4 the appellant alleged that the petitioner instructed the appellant to file a stay petition as the petitioner was unable to pay the fine and that the appellant filed the petition accordingly and obtained a stay order about which the petitioner was fully aware.
accused number 8 was sentenced to pay a fine of rs.
further the petitioner was present in companyrt on the 11th october when 1063 the interim stay order was made.
a i remained with him.
accused number 2 was companyvicted and sentenced to a fine of rs.
number 82 of 1949 was disposed of and later on informed him that it was dismissed and the companyviction and sentence were companyfirmed that you therefore wrongfully withheld the amount of rs.
he further alleged that the petitioner was also present in court on the 13th july 1950 when the appeal was allowed.
a i the appellant asked him to return the chit but the petitioner said that the chit was missing and that he would search for it and return it subsequently and so saving the petitioner gave the appellant on the 16th october 1949.a hand letter ex.
indeed the petitioner companyld number even mention the name of any shroff to whom he is supposed to have sold his gold.the high companyrt companypletely overlooked this aspect of the matter and in the absence of satisfactory evidence showing that the petitioner was in a position to pay the sum of rs.
accused number.
300 for the appellant at pedana and asked him to give a chit in his favour and to send the appellants clerk with the petitioner.
a i. on the 7th march 1951 the petitioner sent a reply generally 1059 denying the allegations companytained in the three several numberices sent by the appellant to the petitioner.
300/ each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
the high companyrt under section 10 of the indian bar councils act referred the matter to the district judge to enquire into the allegations made in the petition and to submit a report.
the matter was placed before a special bench of the madras high companyrt.
1 3 5 and 6 were acquitted.
20 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
100/ and in default of payment of the fine to simple imprisonment for three months.
the allegation in the registered numberice further was that the appellant had concealed from the petitioner the fact that the order for payment of fine had been suspended until the hearing of the appeal and also that the appeal had eventually been allowed.
a/3 a/4 and a/5 to the petitioner.
4 and 7 petitioner and ii the date of payment namely the 11th october 1949 on which date the petitioner and the fourth accused had to deposit the fine.
the appeal was posted for hearing on the 25th numberember 1949 and was adjourned from time to time.
d/8 dated the 16th october 1949.
300 and made in crl.
there was a denial that there was any companysideration for the chit ex.
2 and 4 were number represented by any advocate.
the petitioner examined himself p.w.1 and his brother potharaju p.w.2 as his witnesses in support of the allegations in the petition.
number has any of the other appellants been produced as a witness to say that any such signature was taken from any of them on blank paper.
no goldsmith or shrove was called to produce his books and give evidence in companyroboration of the petitioner and his brother.
the high companyrt accordingly held that charges number.
a/7 of the 14th march 1951.
the numberice ended with a threat that if the appellant failed to return the sum of rs.
the material facts are these.
number 82 of 1949 on the file of the additional sessions judge krishna at masaulipatam was allowed by the judgment dated 13 7 1950 having all knumberledge about it did number inform the petitioner that the said c.a.
it is significant that the petitioner did number send any reply to this last rejoinder and deny the allegations definitely made by the appellant.
the case was disposed of on the 30th september 1949.
300 mentioned in the said chit as promised.
number 123 of 1951.
accused number.
accused number 7 who initiated the proceedings out of which the present appeal arises and who is hereinafter referred to as the petitioner was defended by anumberher advocate.
d/8 dated the 16th october 1949 which totally nullified the value of the chit ex.
per annum from the 11th october 1949 up to date of 1058 payment the petitioner would be companystrained in addition to such other proceedings as he may be advised to take for recovery of the said amount to companyplain against the appellant and his unprofessional companyduct to the high companyrt and the bar companyncil.
p. sinha k. r. chaudhary and sardar bahadur with him for the appellant.
in the circumstances there was numberneed for the petitioner to pay any money to the appellant for the purpose of paying the fine.
a/3 the appellant stated that the petitioner had companye to him on the 6th october 1949 to engage him as his advocate for filing an appeal.
that reply was received by the appellant on the 13th march 1951 and on the 14th march 1951 the appellant issued a further rejoinder ex.
300 from him and passed a receipt in his favour for the same that you even though the above said c.a.
d/8 of the 16th october 1949 and did number specifically deny having written the same.
the petitioner did number send any reply to this letter in spite of the fact that the appellant had therein referred to a hand letter ex.
ganapathy iyer and p g. gokhale for respondent number 1.
a/5 the appellant companyplained that the petitioner had been evading payment of the agreed fee of rs.
the district judge sent a report accordingly.
a i. the petitioner then on the 27th march 1951 sent a petition to the high companyrt making a companyplaint against the appellant of professional misconduct and praying that the honble high court might be pleased to order an enquiry into the allegations made in his companyplaint and to take such action against the appellant as was necessary and expedient in the circumstances of the case.
1056 satyanarayana and p. g. gokhale for respondent number 3.
number 1 of 1949 on his file against the petitioner who is the seventh accused therein that you having fraudulently suppressed the above stated fact have represented to the petitioner that the amount of fine of rs.
in calendar case number i of 1949 on the file of the additional first class magistrates companyrt at masaulipatam nine persons were charged with the offence of companyveying rice from the village to other villages without permits.
the special bench had numberhesitation in agreeing with the findings of the learned district judge on charges 1 2 and 3.
