In a classic case of professional misconduct, Bir Kishore Rai, the pleader appeared for both sides in the same case. It was grossly improper conduct within the meaning of clause (b) of section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The young Pleader with a four year practice was working under the guidance of his father-in-law.
In Emperor vs. Bir Kishore Rai (1918), the Patna High Court's bench of Justices B.K. Mullick, Sir Ali Imam, Kt. and Thornhill opined that Rai's disregard of the rules was gross and intentional, and a warning will have the effect of impressing upon members of the Bar in the Mufassil the necessity of strict observance of the provisions of the law. It is not required to prove some act involving a moral stigma or proof of actual injury to a litigant but intentionally disobeying the rules is sufficient. It directed that the Pleader be suspended for a period of six month. The judgement was authored by Justice Mullick. The Pleader had signed the Vakalatnamas for both sides in the same case.
The judgement reads:"We direct that the Pleader, Babu Bir Kishore Rai, be suspended for a period of six months commencing from the 7th of February 1918."
In its judgement, the Court observed: "so far as Pleaders are concerned, the matter seems to have been settled in this Court by the decision of the Special Bench in In the matter of two Pleaders 41 Ind. Cas. 328; 2 P.L.J. 259; 1 P.L.W. 483; (1917) Pat. 217; 18 Cr.L.J. 803. In that case the matter turned upon Order III, rule 4, sub-clause (2), which enacts that "every appointment of a Pleader, when accepted, shall be filed in Court and shall be considered to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court, by a writing signed by the client or the Pleader, as the case may be, and filed in Court or until the client or the Pleader dies or until all proceedings in the suit are ended so far as regards the client." It was held by the Special Bench in the case above referred to that although the Pleader may not have acted out of any improper motive, gross carelessness and disregard of the rules of the profession cannot be overlooked and constitute gross misconduct in the discharge of professional duties within the meaning of section 13(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act."
No comments:
Post a Comment