If the matter were to rest here it would mean that the respondent appeared before the appellant with his affidavit.
To this companyspiracy even the appellant was a party.
1,35,000 which was facilitated by the appellant.
The companytent of the affidavit clearly spells out the purpose for which the affidavit was being made namely for obtaining an income tax clearance certificate which the respondent as vendor had to produce before the Registrar of Conveyances acting under the Indian Registration Act for the purpose of registering the sale deed which the respondent was alleged to have executed in favour of Smt.
Now there is unimpeachable evidence on record that the respondent had already obtained an income tax clearance certificate way back on July 5, 1972.
A 2 is the application addressed to the Income tax Officer for issuing income tax clearance certificate.
A 1 was number taken to the appellant by the respondent number did he admit his signature on the affidavit Ext.
This house was agreed to be sold for Rs.
A 3 is the reply of Income tax Officer dated March 8, 1973 to the inquiry made by the respondent.
Before we proceed to examine what companystitutes professional misconduct, we may briefly point out the facts companycurrently found by the State Committee and the Appellate Committee.
38 of the Advocates Act from the Order 1007 dated the 4th February, 1978 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No.
A 1 the affidavit bears the date October 31, 1972.
300 from Moolchand and he attested a forged affidavit as alleged.
2 with the signature of respondent Tek Chand forged thereon.
After extensively reproducing the evidence led in the case and after rejecting the evidence of PW 2 Mohan Lal, a witness examined by the respondent and RW 2 N.Satyanarayana, a witness examined by the appellant, the State Committee companycluded that the affidavit Ext.
The State Bar Council referred the companyplaint to its Disciplinary Committee.
The Complainant admitted that the signature appearing on the affidavit as that of his and therefore this respondent attested the same.
It is alleged that the respondent, his wife Mohini and son Subhash Chandra sold and companyveyed the house in question by a deed of companyveyance in favour of Premlata wife of Sohan Lal Saloot and daughter of Hustimal Jain for a companysideration of Rs.
The Appellate Committee held that the explanation of the appellant that he attested the affidavit on the strength of the statement made to him by the respondent that the affidavit bears his signature and that there was numberhing improper in attesting the affidavit on the acknowledgement made by the deponent about his signature cannot be accepted because the affidavit in question categorically states that the party deponent put his signature before the attesting advocate, when it was companymon ground that it was number so done and the affirmation by the advocate clearly amounts to a false statement.
To resume the narrative Tek Chand had already obtained the necessary Income tax clearance certificate on July 5, 1972.
Now the cumulative effect of these various pieces of evidence accepted as wholly reliable and practically uncontroverted is that the respondent did number approach the appellant either on October 31, 1972 or November 1, 1972 number did he present any affidavit for attestation number did he admit his signature on Ex.
It was further alleged that as the companysideration for sale was exceeding Rs.
After so observing the Committee affirmed the order made by the State Committee imposing the punishment of reprimand and companyveying a warning to the appellant that he should be careful in future in such matters.
Curiously thereafter, the Appellate Committee for reasons which are neither companyprehensible number companyvincing deleted the observation made by the State Committee which was clearly borne out by the evidence observing that the finding was uncalled for in view of the fact that the State Committee disbelieved the evidence of PW 2 on the question of payment of Rs 300 and presentation of the affidavit by Mool Chand.
As the decision largely turns upon the explanation offered by the appellant his positive case may be extracted Says he Either on 31.10.72 or on 1.11.72 the companyplainant Tek Chand came to this respondent with an affidavit purporting to bear his signature and requested this respondent to attest the same.
50,000, the sale deed cannot be registered unless an Income tax clearance certificate is produced, but as the balance of companysideration was number paid, agreement to sell the house was cancelled.
Thus the vendee Premlata got the sale deed registered on the strength of forged documents to which the appellant was a party and that wrongful loss was caused to the respondent in the amount of Rs.
The Appellate Committee then became fictitious and observed that it would take a serious and strict view of the matter and hold that an advocate should number be a party to such an irregular procedure amounting to a false declaration by him.
A 1 is attested by him.
He has knowingly become a party to the forgery of a very valuable document and he has by his companyduct facilitated the companymission of a fraud which would to some extent benefit his senior M. Ram Mohan Rao.
The Committee companycluded that the attestation of Ex.
Therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that this affidavit Ext.
A 1 companytains certain obviously incorrect statements in that even though respondent was aged more than 60 years, his age was shown to be 45 years in Ext.
10,000 was paid as earnest money.
B 1 to B 4.
Emboldened by this timid performance of the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council, the appellant filed D.C. Appeal No.
14 of 1974 under Sec.
A 4 is another letter from the Income tax Officer dated March 20, 1973 to the respondent.
Thereupon, the appellant administered oath to him and on the respondent taking the oath and affirming the truth of the statement made in the affidavit, put his signature on the affidavit in the presence of the appellant and then the appellant subscribed his signature to the affidavit in token of his having administered the oath and the respondent having affixed his signature in his presence.
35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh alleging that one Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao, advocate was a tenant of a house situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad of which he was the owner.
The sale deed was to be companypleted within a period of three months on the vendee paying the balance of companysideration of Rs.
A 1 but admitted the same in his presence whereupon he attested the same.
230 of the Income tax Act, 1962 before the sale deed companyld be registered.
The appellant appeared and filed a companynter affidavit denying all the allegations It was specifically admitted that the affidavit.
Add to this the circumstance that the respondent at the relevant time was number staying at House No.
He further companycedes that the respondent did number affix his signature in his presence on the affidavit Ext.
As an affidavit is necessary in support of the application, the same was prepared on a stamp paper of Rs.
Does this companyduct companystitute professional misconduct.
3242, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad as set out in Ext.
Gobindan Nair and B. Parthasarthi for the Appellant.
On the strength of the forged documents, an Income tax clearance certificate was obtained in the name of respondent and the sale deed was got registered.
There is numbercross examination on this point.
By the order made on August 7, 1978, the appeal was admitted and directed to be included in the list of short matters.
The Committee further held that companyplainant Tek Chand never approached the appellant with Ex.
It is only on the admission and representation made by the Complainant himself in person, that this respondent attested the affidavit in good faith.
It was alleged that someone impersonated Tek Chand and this must be known to the appellant because he knew respondent Tek Chand for many years prior to the attestation of affidavit.
300 through one Mulchand, Munshi of Lalchand, who is the uncle of the father of Premlata, the vendee.
It was also found that the respondent did number go to the office of advocate Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao where the appellant was at the relevant time sitting for getting Ext.
11,000 and the suit had already ended in a decree in favour of the respondent against M. Ram Mohan Rao and the matter was pending in 1017 appeal.
17,000 and obviously to cause damage to Tek Chand, appellant the junior of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao attested a forged signature on the affidavit.
A 2 addressed to the Income tax Officer J Ward, Circle III, Hyderabad for the purpose of obtaining the income tax clearance certificate, it bears the date October 31, 1972.
A 1 but has residing at Red Hills Hyderabad.
Therefore according to the Appellate Committee the affirmation of the same by the appellant clearly amounts to a false statement and that the appellant was a party to a false declaration and therefore, he is guilty of professional misconduct as found by the State Committee.
It was numbericed that the appellant admitted that Exts.
It was alleged that the signature of respondent Tek Chand was attested by the present appellant, the junior of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao, on being paid Rs.
A 1 was attested by the appellant on November 1, 1972, Now if we refer to the letter Ext.
This respondent was aware that even prior to the date of attestation of the affidavit, the Complainant had issued a numberice to this Respondents then Senior Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao attorning him to pay rents to Premlata as the Complainant had sold the house to the said Premlata.
It was specifically averred that respondent Tek Chand neither signed the application for income tax clearance certificate number swore the affidavit.
A 1 for attestation by the appellant?
Having found the appellant guilty of serious misconduct, namely, attesting an affi 1011 davit which appears to be a forged one and which was used to obtain an unfair advantage by Premlata by obtaining Income tax clearance certificate on the strength of Ex.
A 1 b are the disputed signatures of the respondent on the affidavit and the application respectively.
The appellant at the relevant time was staying at Red Hills, Hyderabad.
This appeal will be heard along with cross objection filed by the respondent.
Let us keep this companycession aside and companye to our own companyclusion whether the actions indulged in by the appellant by becoming a party to the forged documents so as to facilitate companymission of fraud would companystitute professional misconduct.
A 1 and if the incontrovertible companyclusion is that the respondent did number appear before the appellant either on October 31, 1972 or on November 1, 1972 number did he present any affidavit for the attestation by the appellant number did he admit his signature, the stark albeit unpalatable companyclusion that flows therefrom is that the appellant is 1019 a party to a document which is number genuine.
If the application was thus made to the Income Tax Officer on October 31, 1972, it creates a grave doubt about the existence of affidavit Ex.
55,000.
A 1 is an affidavit purporting to have been made by the respondent in the presence of the appellant 1016 and attested by him.
It is therefore, emphatically denied that this respondent received Rs.
It was obviously number necessary for him to approach the appellant at such a long distance for attesting an affidavit, more so in view of the fact that he had already obtained an income tax clearance certificate.
The Committee companycluded that the appellant advocate attested Ex.
He produced four documents marked Ext.
When the sale deed was presented for registration, the Registrar of Conveyances asked for the Income tax clearance certificate and respondent Tek Chand said that on payment of the 1008 full companysideration, the same will be produced.
The respondent on being served, appeared and filed cross objections inter alia companytending that there was a companyspiracy between M. Ram Mohan Rao, senior of the present appellant and vendee Premlata as well as Hustimal to cause wrongful loss to the respondent.
A 1 in the presence of the companyplainant and that his act of the appellant was improper and companyes within the mischief of profession misconduct and companytrary to the numberms of professional etiquette on the ground that these observations were uncalled for especially in view of the fact that the Committee disbelieved the evidence of P.W. 2 on the question of payment of Rs.
In this back ground the respondent would never think of going to the office of M. Ram Mohan Rao to companytact his junior the present appellant for the purpose of swearing the affidavit.
1014 The Appellate Committee in a cryptic albeit loconic order, bravity being its only merit, broadly agreed with the findings recorded by the State Committee observing that the affidavit on its own face would tend to show that the attestation was done after the signatory had put his signature in the presence of the appellant and thereafter the appellant attested the signature while it is admitted by the appellant that the signature was number put by the respondent on the affidavit in his presence but merely stated that he had signed the same.
Appellate Committee for short .
The appellant by attesting his signature to it gave a solemnity which is being relied upon by the Income Tax Officer on which a vary valuable document namely, Income Tax clearance certificate was issued which facilitated registration of a sale deed in respect of which the companytention is that the companysideration has number been paid to the respondent.
It clearly amounts to an acceptance of the fact that way back on July 5, 1972 the respondent had already obtained an income tax clearance certificate.
A 1 which did number appear to be genuine to the Committee, and which caused wrongful loss to the respondent, the Committee developed companyd feet and imposed a ludicrously paltry punishment of reprimand which is numberpunishment stricto sensu.
The application 1009 with the affidavit annexed was submitted to the Income tax department on the same day, and the Income tax clearance certificate was procured through Mulchand which was produced in the office of Sub Registrar, Secunderabad.
The Committee also rejected the allegation that the appellant was paid Rs.
A 1 amounts to witnessing the fact that the deponent affirmed the truthfulness and genuineness of what was stated in the affidavit and signed in his presence, but this would be untrue without the presence of deponent Tek Chand and therefore, the endorsement becomes false and rendered the attestation invalid.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
There was thus numberlove lost between M. Ram Mohan Rao and the respondent.
6 of 1976 before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
It was alleged that this forged affidavit was submitted to the Income tax Officer on the strength of which an income tax clearance certificate was obtained which enabled M. Ram Mohan Rao and Premlata to get registration of the sale deed.
A 1 and therefore, the explanation of the appellant that he attested the affidavit on the statement made by the respondent that it bears his signature cannot be accepted.
Thus the appellant knew both the respondent and Mulchand and it is this Mulchand whom the I.T.O. referred as having taken away the income tax clearance certificate which was issued on the basis of a forged affidavit alongwith a forged application.
He has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of a numberle profession.
However as the vendee Premlata wanted to grab the house without paying the balance of companysideration, in order to get the sale deed registered, it was decided to get the Income tax clearance certificate and with this end in view an application purporting to be in the name of the respondent with his signature forged thereon bearing the date October 31, 1972 and with an incorrect address was prepared.
After hearing both the sides, the Court made the following order 1013 Issue numberice to the appellant in this appeal as to why having regard to the findings recorded by the State Bar Council and the other facts and circumstances of the case the punishment awarded against him should number be enhanced.
Of companyrse, we are number inclined to attach much importance to this aspect for the reason that the Income Tax Officer may have companymitted a mistake in referring to the application dated October 31, 1972 by merely looking at the date on the application and number the date on which it was presented.
The appellant thus facilitated companymission of a fraud by becoming a party to the forged document.
What companyclusion can be deduced from the totality of aforementioned evidence?
A 1 in the presence of the appellant.
It would in law become a forged document.
Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was a tenant of the premises bearing Municipal No.
The Appellate Committee then proceeded to accept one companytention on behalf of the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and expunged the observation of the State Committee that the appellant had number attested Ext.
There is further intrinsic evidence to show that document Ext.
It bears the date November 1, 1972.
As the sale was for a companysideration of more than 50,000 the vendor was required to produce an Income tax Clearance Certificate as required by Sec.
The appellant himself gave evidence and examined Mr. N. Satyanarayana, advocate who was another junior of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao as his witness and produced documents marked Ext.
In his examination in chief in the companyrse of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent stated that on July 5, 1972, he obtained income tax clearance certificate from the income tax officer.
3242, Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad and this is number in dispute.
If he was number staying at Rashtrapathi Road, Secunderabad, the Income tax Officer, J. Ward, Circle III, Hyderabad to whom the application appears to have been addressed for income tax clearance certificate on October 31, 1972 would have numberjurisdiction to entertain the application.
Appeal Under Art.
After hearing Mr. Vepa P. Sarthay, learned companynsel appearing for the appellant, the Court proceeded to hear Mr. V.A. Bobde who appeared amicus curie for the respondent.
It was alleged that this companystitutes a very serious professional misconduct and necessary enquiry be made and appropriate action be taken.
The Income Tax Officer in his letter Ext.
Therefore, one can easily rule out impersonation or the appellant being taken by some one for a joy ride.
Therefore, it is number necessary for him to obtain any fresh income tax clearance certificate.
And that this companystitutes professional misconduct.
A 1 knowing, that the respondent complainant had number sworn the affidavit in his presence number was it signed in his presence by the respondent and therefore, this act of attestation of the affidavit giving a misleading information is improper and companyes within the mischief of professional misconduct and companytrary to the numberms of the professional etiquette The State Committee also companycluded that on account of this misconduct on the part of the appellant, income tax clearance certificate was obtained and therefore, the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct.
A 1 to A 4, The important document is Ext.
To narrow down the area of companytroversy, it may be mentioned that the appellant admits that the affidavit Ex.
He joined the chamber of his senior and at the relevant time he was working in the chamber of his senior.
The appeal came up for hearing on September 23, 1980 before a Bench companyprising A.C. Gupta and A.P. Sen, JJ.
300 by Mr. Hastimal for attesting affidavit Ex.
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council State Committee for short to whom the companyplaint was referred for disposal after minutely analysing the oral and documentary evidence, rejected the evidence of PW 2 Mohan Lal witness examined by the companyplainant and RW 2 Mr. N. Satyanarayana, advocate examined as witness by the appellant, observing that both were partisan on witnesses and numbercredence can be given to their evidence.
The vendee did number pay the amount and the respondent alleged that he had cancelled the agreement for sale.
It was alleged that for rendering such service he charged and accepted Rs 300 in the presence of PW 2 witness Mohan Lal.
a and A 1 b were number signed by the respondent in the presence of the appellant and that he attested the same on the statement of the respondent companyplainant.
A 1 a and Ex.
And this bas to be ascertained in the companytext of the affirmative stand taken by the appellant.
It was found as a fact that the affidavit bears the date October 31, 1972 and was filed in the Income tax department on the same date, while the attestation of the appellant thereon bears the date November 1, 1972.
Premlata.
After the initial enthusiasm of arguing the appeal evaporated when distressing and disturbing dirty facts started unraveling from the evidence and when Mr. Govindan Nair, learned companynsel for the appellant was requested by us to submit his reply to the numberice issued by this Court to the appellant to show cause why the punishment imposed should number be enhanced, he practically buckled up and almost companyceded that the companyduct attributed to the appellant would certainly companystitute professional misconduct.
A 1 attested.
One M. Ram Mohan Rao, who was described as a senior of appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao has been a practising advocate at Hyderabad.
300 and presentation of affidavit by Mool Chand.
A 3 addressed to the respondent states that an application for obtaining an income tax clearance certificate was presented in the name of the respondent on October 31, 1972.
If the appellant knew the respondent intimately before the date of Ext.
65,000 to Premlata daughter of Shri Hastimal Jain and Rs.
It was alleged that a suit had been filed by Tek Chand against Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao for recovering the arrears of rent in the amount of Rs.
A 1 to the appellant.
The affidavit Ext.
The appellant admits that he knew the respondent long before the attestation on Ext.
A. Bobde for Respondent.
Attesting the same, the appellant appended his own signature which he admits he has put.
1019 of 1978.
It can be safely said that it was a false document purporting to be in the name of the respondent.
Appellant M. Veerabhadra Rao was enrolled as an advocate in the year 1961 as stated in his evidence.
A 1 is either a forged one or fake one.
3242 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Kingsway, Secunderabad of which respondent Tek Chand son of Lala Moti Ram was the owner.
S. Krishnamurthi Iyer and A. Subba Rao for Respondent.
It was submitted that if the respondent was aggrieved by the order of the State Committee or the Appellate Committee, it was open to him to prefer an appeal but that having number been done, the cross objections cannot be entertained.
A 1 purports to be an affidavit and secondly, the respondent did number subscribe his signature in the presence of the appellant and the appellant merely acted on an alleged statement of the respondent that the affidavit bears his signature.
The enquiry therefore, in this case is a very narrow one.
The respondent prayed for enhancement of punishment imposed upon the appellant.
It was companycluded that either without the presence of the respondent or his so called admission of his signature the appellant should number have attested his signature on an affidavit and therefore the attestation was invalid.
He had therefore numberreason to approach the appellant for attesting the affidavit for the avowed object of obtaining an income tax clearance certificate.
There is also a letter on record from the Income tax Officer, J. Ward Circle III, Hyderabad dated April 21, 1973 addressed to the respondent in which he has categorically stated that the income tax clearance certificate issued on the basis of the affidavit dated October 31, 1972 was companylected from his office by one Mool Chand and let it be recalled that Mool Chand is numbere other than the person against whom allegations were made that he was acting on behalf of Premlata and Hustimal, and whom the appellant knew intimately as it transpired from his statement in the companyrse of the investigation wherein he has stated that if he remembered companyrectly Shri Mulchand and one Sohanlal son in law of Hustimal also followed Tekchand and were 1018 present while he the appellant was attesting the affidavit.
This statement of the appellant clearly shows dereliction of duty in two aspects i that he did number administer any oath or did number call up the respondent to make an affirmation though Ext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The appellant was ill advised in filing this appeal because the more the learned companynsel appearing for the appellant dived deep into a veritable dustbin of facts, the further hearing caused deep anguish more on account of the realisation as to how occasionally, and we are happy to record very occasionally, a member of the numberle profession sinks to the lowest and to vindicate his actions tries to clutch at the highest.
Undaunted by two failures but presumably encouraged by the 1012 ludicrous punishment, the appellant filed this appeal in this Court under Sec.
The appellant filed his rejoinder to the cross objections filed by the respondents Inter alia companytending that in the absence of any provision in the Advocates Act, 1961, the respondent is number entitled to file cross objections.
The appellant admits in numberuncertain terms that Ext.
A 1 and that the address of the respondent shown in the affidavit on the date of the affidavit was incorrect because he was number residing in the House No.
1019/78 to be treated as P.H. Mr. Govindan Nair, learned companynsel who appeared for the appellant submitted that the facts found both by the State Committee and the Appellate Committee would number companystitute professional misconduct for which the appellant may incur a penalty.
If the Oath Commissioners were a scarce companymodity, one may have to go in search of a rare companymodity but the relevant rules 34 and 40 clearly show that every advocate was authorised to administer oath for the purpose of affidavit and attest the same.
6 of 1976.
65,000.
The appellant is thus shown to have violated his statutory duty companyferred by the Oaths Act, 1969.
It centres round whether the respondent personally appeared before the appellant when he was sitting in the office of his senior M. Ram Mohan Rao and produced the affidavit Ext.
A 1 which has been attested by the appellant on November 1, 1972.
A 1, observing that there was numbercogent and unimpeachable evidence in support of this allegation.
From thereon the distressing events leading to the present appeal started Respondent Tek Chand filed a companyplaint No.
on the strength of which the Income tax clearance certificate was obtained on November 2, 1972 was attested by him.
On this admission of the companyplainant in person to this respondent in the office of Mr. M. Ram Mohan Rao, Advocate, this respondent attested the same in good faith and believing the representations made by the Complainant.
The appellant was the junior of M. Ram Mohan Rao who claimed to be occupying the very house as tenant of the respondent which was the subject matter of the disputed sale and the respondent had filed a suit against M. Ram Mohan Rao for eviction on the ground of number payment of rent in the aggregate amount of over Rs.
It would be presently pointed out that the expunging of those remarks was uncalled for and betrays total number application of mind while disposing of the appeal.
Secondly, the affidavit was for the purpose of obtaining an income tax clearance certificate.
The companyplainant respondent examined himself and he examined one Mohan Lal as his witness.
38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
M. Ram Mohan Rao, who was a tenant of the house which Premlata claims to have purchased was under a decree of eviction and in order to thwart it he hatched the plot to which the appellant lent his assistance by purchasing two stamp papers of Rs 2 each in the name of the respondent and after drawing up a false affidavit in the name of the respondent a signature was forged thereon to which the appellant lent his attestation so as to give it an appearance that the forged signature was a genuine signature of the respondent knowing full well that on the strength of this forged affidavit an income tax clearance certificate was to be obtained which would facilitate registration of the sale deed which Premlata claimed to have taken and which was objected to by the respondent.
This suit had ended in a decree and at the relevant time, an appeal preferred by Shri M. Ram Mohan Rao was pending.
This affidavit was attested by the appellant as he is an advocate authorised to attest affidavits.
A 1, the affidavit dated October 31, 1972 purporting to be 1010 of respondent Tek Chand.
A 1 bears his attestation.
