40 of 1983 were initiated against respondent No.1 by the Bar Council of U.P. IN the said proceedings, respondent No.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar companyncil of U.P. directed that respondent No.
1 from practice for three years had been set aside.
1 had prepared the document which was subsequently found forged and that respondent No.
70 of 1981 were initiated against respondent No.1 by the Bar Council of U.P. By order dated January 30,1982 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. found respondent No.1 guilty of gross professional mis conduct by taking the benefit himself of a forged and fabricated document which had been prepared at his behest.
1 guilty of gross professional mis conduct by taking the benefit himself of a forged and fabricated document which had been prepared at his behest.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India was, therefore, in error in setting aside the order dated March 25, 1984 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P merely on the basis of its order dated June 8, 1984 in D.C. Case No.
VI Chh.
Before he companyld be arrested to under go the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., a companyy of letter No.
8 of Police Station, Wazirgang, District Badaun and further that a number of criminal case have been registered against him.
The submission of Shri Markendaya is that having regard to the gravity of the mis conduct of respondent No.
1 he remained out of jail till September 27, 1978 on the basis of a forged and fraudulent document purported to have been sent by the Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P., Lucknow and that during the said period he companytinued to practice as an Advocate.
1 under section 35 of the Advocates Act , 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
8 maintained at Kotwali Badaun and the said register companytains the names of bad character and that this fact was also found established by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. and it was observed that it is unbecoming of an advocate to earn such a bad reputation in the society.
1 companyld be given the benefit of doubt and therefore, the order dated January 30, 1982 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. in D.C case number 70 of 1981 was set aside.
1, in his appeal, prayed that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. be set aside the appellant, in his appeal, on the other hand, wanted the said punishment to be enhanced and his name to be removed from the roll of advocates.
1 was companyvicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 307 P.C. and under Section 25 of the Arms Act and that his name is recorded in Register No.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. directed that respondent No.1 be debarred from practising as an advocate for a period of two years from the date of the service of the order.
After receiving the companyy of the said letter dated April 28, 1979, stayed the proceedings in the case and despite repeated inquiries by the companyrt from the State Government about the suspension of the sentences the execution of the sentence awarded to respondent remained suspended till September 27, 1977, when on receipt of a crash radiogram message from the Home Ministry, Lucknow, it was found that the letter dated April 28,1976 was fraudulent and thereupon a warrant for the arrest of respondent number1 was issued by the companyrt on September 28, 1977 and he was arrested the same day and was sent to Badaun Jail to undergo the imprisonment.
70 of 1981 were initiated against respondent No.
1 his registration as an advocate may be cancelled since he is a blot to the names of all the advocates.
Both the appeals were disposed of by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of the India by order dated September 8, 1985.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated September 8, 1985 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India allowing D.C. Appeal No.
4 of 1982 whereby the order of the Bar Council of U.P. dated January 30, 1982 suspending respondent No.
On the basis of the said companyplaint disciplinary proceedings C. Case No.
1873 of 1972 but he was given the benefit of doubt regarding offence under Section 25 of Arms Act and the companyviction and sentence for the said offence were set aside.
1 involving his companyviction for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C and his being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.
Shri Markendaya also urged that in his companyplaint the appellant had also pointed out that the name of respondent No.
4 of 1982 in the Bar Council of India against the order dated January 30, 1982 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. The said Civil and Session Judge, by his judgment dated July 3,1972, companyvicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. and for a period of nine months for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
Respondent No.
It was prayed that a fresh inquiry may be made in the matter and in case the facts are proved against respondent No.
1 was companyvicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C and under Section 25 of the Arm Act and that his names of the bad character are entered.
1 is entered in Register No.
4 of 1982 arising out of the companyplaint filed by Shri G.S. Sharma, IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Badaun, was different from the mis conduct which had been found established on the basis of the companyplaint made by the appellant.
17 of 1984 filed by respondent No.
After investigation he was prosecuted for offencesunder Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act.
1513 II 75 76 was received in the companyrt of the IIIrd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Badaun who was responsible for executing the order of the companyrt of the Ist Temporary Civil Sessions Judge on its abolition.
1 by the Bar Council of U.P. By order dated January 30,1982 the Disciplinary companymittee of the Bar Council of P. found respondent No.1 guilty of gross professional mis companyduct by taking the benefit himself of a forged and fabricated document which had been prepared at his behest.
On the basis of the said companyplaint of the appellant proceedings D.C. Case No.
1 when he was asked to address the Court on the appeal regarding enhancement of the punishment imposed on respondent No.
1 from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.
Respondent No.1 filed an appeal C. Appeal No.
4 of 1982, felt that there was numbermaterial from which it companyld reasonably be held that respondent No.
The companyplaint of Shri G.S. Sharma, which gave rise to D.C. Case No.
1 which was the subject matter of the companyplaint in D.C. Case No.
1 and dismissing D.C Appeal No.
1 under Article 161 of the Constitution with immediate effect and that until further order he should remain free.
The companyviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. were maintained by the High Court by its judgment dated September 10, 1975 in Criminal Appeal No.
in assaulting his opponent in the companyrt Rom with a knife and his having been companymitted the offence under Section 307 I.P.C and his being sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for three years in companynection with the said incident, the punishment of removal of the name of respondent No.
On December 9, 1977 Shri G.S. Sharma, IIIrd Additional District Sessions Judge, Badaun, sent a companyplaint companytaining these facts to the Chairman, Bar Council of U,P. for taking action against respondent No.
1513 II 75 76 was received in the Court of the IIIrd Additional District and Session Judge, Badaun, who was responsible for executing the order of the companyrt of the Ist Temporary Civil Sessions Judge on its abolition.
In the said letter it was stated that the Governor has been pleased to suspend the companyviction of Ishwar Prasad Arya under Article 161 of the Constitution with immediate effect and until further orders he should remain free.
A pistal shot is also said to have been fired by him at the time of incident.
1513 II 75 76 wherein it was stated that the Governor was pleased to suspend the companyviction of respondent No.
8 of Kotwali Badaun which was the subject matter of the companyplaint made by the appellant and on the basis of which the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P had passed the order dated March 25, 1984 in D.C Case No.
Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
1 had assaulted his opponent, Shri Radhey Shyam, with a knife.
The appellant, Hikmat Ali Khan, had also submitted a companyplaint against respondent No.1 to the Secretary, Bar Council of U.P., where in it was stated that by order dated July 3, 1972 passed by the Temporary Civil Session Judge, Badaun the respondent had been companyvicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 I.P.C. and his appeal had been dismissed by the High Court by judgment dated September 10, 1975 and even after the dismissal of his appeal respondent No.
1 as well as the cross appeal of the appellant which were filed against the said order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P., failed to take number that the mis conduct of respondent No.
1 from the roll of advocates should have been imposed on him and that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. was in error in imposing the light punishment of debarring respondent No.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. directed that respondent No.
1 is represented by Shri H.K. Puri .
1 under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
1 filed an appeal D.C. Appeal No.4 of 1982 in the Bar Council of India against the order dated January 30, 1982 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. The said appeal was allowed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India by order dated June 8,1984 and the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P dated January 30, 1982 was set aside on the view that there was numbermaterial on the basis of which it companyld reasonably be held that respondent No.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, while dealing with the appeal of respondent No.
Respondent No.
Pa XXIII 2016 75 76 dated April 28,1976 purporting to have been sent by Shri L.R. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P., Lucknow, addressed to the District Magistrate, Badaun bearing endorsement No.
The Ist Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated July 3,1972, companyvicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and for a period of nine months for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.
17 of 1984 filed by respondent No.
17 of 1984 against the said order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. The appellant also filed an appeal D.C. Appeal No.
Before he companyld be arrested to undergo the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under section 307 P.C., a companyy of letter No.
1 had prepared the document which was subsequently found forged.
In the said companyplaint of Shri G.S. Sharma, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P., by order dated January 30, 1982, found respondent No.
The companyviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 P.C. were maintained by the High Court by its judgment dated September 10,1975 in Criminal Appeal No.
The Disciplinary Committee held that it is unbecoming of an advocate to earn such a bad reputation in the society and that respondent No.
Shri Subodh Markendaya, the learned companynsel for the appellant, has urged that in passing the order dated September 8, 1985 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has failed to appreciate that in the earlier order dated June 8, 1984 in D.C. Appeal No.
The order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated September 8, 1985 allowing D.C Appeal No.
1 be debarred from practising as an advocate for a period of two years from the date of the service of the order.
1 appeared and filed his written statement, but thereafter he did number appear and participate in the proceedings.
On December 9, 1977 Shri G.S. Sharma, IIIrd Additional District Session Judge, Badaun, sent a companyplaint companytaining these facts to the Chairman, Bar companyncil of U.P., for taking action against respondent No.
In the said companyplaint, it was also mentioned that the name of respondent No.1 is numbered as a bad character in register No.
17A of 1984 against the said order.
After arguing for sometime Shri Puri sought leave of the Court for being discharged as an advocate of respondent No.
The said companyviction under Section 307 P.C related to an incident which took place in the companyrt room wherein respondent No.
40 of 1983 debarring respondent No.
1 be debarred from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.
The said companyviction under Section 307 I.P.C. was maintained by the High Court.
Pa XXIII 2016 75 76 dated April 28, 1976 purporting to have been sent by Shri R. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P., Lucknow, addressed to the District and Sessions Judge, Badaun bearing endorsement No.
VI Chh.
70 of 1981 before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P., related to fabrication of the companyy of the letter No.
The said order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India did number have any bearing on the companyduct of respondent No.1 which lead to his companyviction for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C and his being sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years and his name being entered as a bad character in Register No.
17A of 1984 filed by him, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4 of 1982 the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had given the benefit of doubt to respondent No.
1 in respect of fabrication of letter dated April 28, 1976 on the basis of which he was able to avoid being arrested for a period of about 16 months from April 30, 1976 to September 28, 1977 for undergoing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed on him under section 307 I.P.C and that in the said proceedings the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India had number companysidered the companyduct of respondent No.
J. Ishwar Prasad Arya, respondent No.1, was registered as an advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and was practising at Badaun.
4 of 1982.
The Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of U.P proceeded ex parte against him.
After receiving the companyy of the said letter dated April 28,1976 the IIIrd Additional District Sessions Judge, on April 30,1976 stayed the proceedings in the case and despite repeated inquiries by the companyrt from the State Government about the suspension of the sentence the execution of the sentence awarded to respondent remained suspended till September 27, 1977, when on receipt of a crash radiogram message from the Home Ministry, Lucknow, it was found that the letter dated April 28,1976 was fraudulent and thereupon a warrant for the arrest of respondent number1 was issued by the companyrt on September 28,1977 and he was arrested the same day and was sent to Badaun Jail to undergo the imprisonment.
Respondent No.
1873 of 1972 but he was given the benefit of doubt regarding offence under Section 25 of the Arm Act and the companyviction and sentence for the said offence were set aside.
1 was liable to be punished.
C. AGRAWAL.
In the said letter it was stated that the Governor has been pleased to suspend the companyviction of Ishwar Prasad Arya under Article 161 of the companystitution with immediate effect and until further orders he should remain free.
1 from practising as an advocate for a period of three years only and that this was a fit case in which the appeal filed by the appellant should have been allowed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
On the basis of the said companyplaint disciplinary proceedings D.C. Case No.
VI Chh.
8 maintained at Kotwali Badaun which is a register in which the names of the bad characters are entered.
Respondent No.
According to Shri Markendaya, the said companyduct of respondent No.1 was the subject matter of the companyplaint filed by the appellant for which companyduct the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. had imposed the punishment of debarring him from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.
1 filed an appeal D.C. Appeal No.
We, however, did number grant leave sought by Shri Puri for being discharged as a companynsel for respondent No.
The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, in its order dated June 8, 1984 in D.C Appeal No.
Pa XXIII 2016 75 76 dated April 28, 1976 from Shri L.R. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home, U.P., Lucknow, to the District Magistrate, Badaun that was received in the companyrt of III rd Additional Session Judge vide endorsement No.
By order dated March 25, 1984 the Disciplinary Committee found that respondent No.
An incident took place on May 18,1971 during lunch interval at about 1.55 p.m. in which respondent No.1 assaulted his opponent Radhey Shyam in the companyrt room of Munsif Magistrate, Bisauli at Badaun with a knife.
1 for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was set aside by the High Court, on appeal, but his companyviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was maintained by the High Court.
