http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: L.C. GOYAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MRS. SURESH JOSHI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       12/03/1999

BENCH: V.N.Khare

JUDGMENT:

V.N. KHARE, J.

     This appeal under Section 18 of the Advocates Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as he Act) at the instance of the appellant  who is a practicing Advocate of the High Court of Delhi  as  well  as an Advocate on Record of this  Court  is directed  against  the  order dated 2.3.1998 passed  by  the Disciplinary  Committee  of  the Bar Council of India  on  a complaint  filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred  to as  complainant)  whereby  the Bar Council  of  India  after having  found that the appellant has committed  professional misconduct,  suspended his licence to practice for a  period of five years.

     The  facts  that emerge out of the complaint filed  by the complainant are these:

     Some  time in September 1989, the complainant  engaged the  appellant  for  filing  a suit for  injunction  on  the Original  Side  of the High Court of Delhi.   The  appellant filed  the  suit.  The appellant is alleged to have  charged Rs.25,102/-  towards payment of court fee and also  Rs.389/- for  miscellaneous  charges total amounting to  Rs.25,491/-, and also a further sum of Rs.6,500/- out of which Rs.3,500/- was  paid  through cheque and a sum of Rs.3,000/-  in  cash. The  appellant  gave  receipt  dated 6.10.89 for  a  sum  of Rs.6,500/-  as  well as receipt dated 6.10.89 for a  sum  of Rs.25,102/-.  Some time in 1992 the complainant came to know that  the  appellant has not deposited the process  fee  and also  did  not press the application for interim  injunction filed in the suit.  The complainant on an enquiry found that the  appellant  has misappropriated a sum of Rs.  25,  102/- and  also did not take any steps towards the progress of the case.   On  being so told by the complainant  the  appellant after  realising  his mistake issued a cheque dated  31.3.93 for a sum of Rs.  38,000/- on account of refund of court fee amount  along  with interest.  The said cheque was drawn  on UCO  Bank  and the same was deposited in the account of  the Union,  namely,  M/s.  Siemens Employees Union,  New  Delhi with the Central Bank of India.  The said cheque bounced due to  insufficient  funds.   Later  on  when  the  complainant approached  the appellant informing him that the cheque  has bounced  the appellant asked the complainant to deposit  the cheque  again  with an assurance that this time  the  cheque

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

would be honoured but again the cheque when it was deposited on  15.5.93  was dishonored with the  remarks  insufficient funds.   The  complainant then sent a notice  dated  9.6.93 which  remained  unreplied.   Under such  circumstances  the complainant  filed a complaint before the Delhi Bar Council. Since  the  said complaint could not be decided  within  the stipulated  time  it  stood transferred to  Bar  Council  of India.   Before  the  Bar Council of India  the  complainant examined herself as well as got exhibited various documents, namely,  Ext.C-1  -  receipt  dated 6.10.89  for  a  sum  of Rs.6,500/-;   Ext.C-2 - another receipt dated 6.10.89  which was in respect of a sum of Rs.25,102/-;  Ext.C-3 - case file of  the  civil  suit filed before the High Court  of  Delhi; Ext.C-4 - cheque issued by the appellant dated 31.3.93 for a sum  of Rs.38,000/-;  Ext C-5 & C-6.  Memos of Central  Bank and  UCO  Bank respectively with respect to presentation  of cheque and its dishonoring on account of insufficient funds; Ext.C-7  and  C-8 - memos of Central Bank and UCO Bank  with respect  to first presentation of cheque and its dishonoring due  to insufficient funds in the account of the  appellant; Ext.C-9  - counter foil of deposit of cheque in the  account of  Siemens  Employees  Union;   Ext.C-14  the  certificate issued  by the S.H.O., Police Station, Tilak Marg, New Delhi dated  28.7.95 to the effect that no complaint was  received from  the appellant regarding theft of cheque book at Police Station,  Tilak Marg.  Besides that the original file of the civil  suit No.2688/89 was summoned by the Bar Council.  The appellant  denied the allegations that he has received a sum of  Rs.25,102/- towards payment of court fee and also denied his  signatures  on Ext.C-1, C-2 and C-4 alleging  that  his signatures  were forged by the respondent herself.  The  Bar Council after considering the entire material found that the appellant  had  received  a  sum  of  Rs.25,102/-  from  the respondent  towards  payment  of court fee  which  he  never deposited  in  the Court and Ext.C-4 bears the signature  of the  appellant.  Consequently, the Bar Council after  having arrived  at the conclusion that the appellant has  committed professional  misconduct, suspended his licence to  practice for  a  period of 5 years.  That is how the matter has  come before us.

     Sh.   R.K.  Jain, learned Senior counsel appearing for the   appellant  advanced  two   submissions.    The   first submission   is  that  the   appellant  having  denied   his signatures  on Exts.  C-1, C-2 and C-4 it was incumbent upon the  Bar Council to have sought an opinion of a hand-writing expert  for finding out the genuineness of the signatures on those  exhibits.  He contended that the failure on the  part of  the  Bar  Council to summon a  hand-writing  expert  has resulted  in  grave injustice to the appellant.  The  second submission is that the appellant has never received a sum of Rs.25,102/-  towards  payment of court fee and  the  finding recorded  by  the Bar Council contrary to it is totally  per verse.   Since  both the submissions of learned counsel  are over-lapping,  we  propose  to  deal  both  the  submissions together.

     After  we heard the matter and perused the record,  we find  five  established circumstances against the  appellant which are stated hereinafter.

     (1)  The  valuation  of the suit given in  the  plaint originally   filed  was  purposely   kept  vague  which  was subsequently   amended   without  the   knowledge   of   the complainant.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

     The  suit was filed in 1989.  However, the Registry of the  High  Court  returned  the   plaint  for  removing  the following defects:

     (i) That the prayer clause was not proper;

     (ii)  That  exact value for the purposes of court  fee and jurisdiction were not mentioned;  and

     (iii)  claim made and the court fee amount paid should also be stated.

     On  26.9.89 the plaint was re-filed and a new para  50 was  added.  Prayer clause was also amended.   Clarification of  the court fee amount was also made and paras 39, 40,  42 and  43 of the plaint were also amended.  In paragraphs  39, 40,  42  and 43 of the plaint the words fixed court fee  of Rs.20/-  is affixed on the plaint were added.  In paragraph 50  which was a new paragraph at page 20 of the plaint,  the value  of each prayer has been tentatively fixed at Rs.200/- and the court fee of Rs.20/- on each prayer has been affixed on  the  plaint were mentioned.  Pages 20, 21 and 22 of  the plaint  did  not  bear  the signatures  of  the  complainant although  all  other pages of the plaint were signed by  the complainant.   Thus it shows that initially no valuation was given  in the plaint but subsequently without any  knowledge of  the  complainant  pages  20 to 22  of  the  plaint  were substituted  under the signatures of the appellant.  Had the respondent  been informed about the substitution of these  3 pages  of  the  plaint  the same would  have  contained  the signatures   of  the  complainant.    When  the  plaint  was originally  filed the figures stated herein were not in  the plaint  which  facts  are borne out from the report  of  the Registry  of the Delhi High Court.  The amount mentioned  in paras 39, 40, 42, 43 and addition of para 50 with respect to court  fee was done by the appellant as the same were not in existence  when the plaint was filed at the first  instance. The  aforesaid facts show that the valuation of the suit was purposely kept vague when the plaint was filed for the first time so that the respondent-complainant may not able to know as  to the actual amount of court fee affixed on the plaint. The  original  plaint  was summoned by the Bar  Council  and after  examining  it the Bar Council recorded the  following findings :

     A  prima  facie look at this makes it clear  that  in column  No.5 stamp paper towards court-fees column has  been left  blank  and no figure has been mentioned  therein.   At S.No.1  against the memo of parties, figure of Rs.140/-  has been  mentioned  and  over   vakalatnama  Rs.2.75  has  been mentioned.   It  is further apparent that alignment  of  the amount of Rs.140/- court fees paid for parties was not typed at  the same time as the alignment of the type clearly shows that  particulars  and objects mentioned at the top  of  the column  horizontally same alignment whereas figure of Rs.140 is  slightly below which clearly indicates that this was put subsequently.   Similarly,  figure  of   Rs.2.75  at  S.No.3 appears  to have been mentioned subsequently as  vakalatnama and figure of 22 appears to have been typed at the same time and  Rs.2.75  is  somewhat on lower level whereas,  had  all these  figures been typed at the same time, they would  have been  in the same line and alignment.  Thus, it appears that figure of Rs.140/- and Rs.2.75 have been typed subsequently.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

     We  are  in  agreement   with  the  aforesaid  finding recorded  by  the Bar Council and are of the view  that  the aforesaid  established circumstances clearly show that exact amount  of court fee to be paid on the plaint was  purposely kept  vague and subsequently three pages were substituted so that  the complainant may not able to know the exact  amount of court fee paid on the plaint.

     (2)  Dishonoring of the cheque issued by the appellant Ex.C/4  by  the bank on account of insufficient fund in  the account of the appellant.

     The  complainant  alleged  that   when  the  appellant realized  that the complainant has come to know that he  has misappropriated a sum of Rs.  25,491/-, he gave a cheque for a  sum  of Rs.  38,000/- which is Ext.C-4.  The said  cheque was  drawn  on  UCO Bank and the same was deposited  in  the Central  Bank  of  India  in the  account  of  Union,  viz., Siemens  Employees  Union, New Delhi.  But the said  cheque was  dishonored  due to insufficient funds.   The  appellant denied  his  signature on Ext.  C-4 and contended  that  his signature  was  forged  by the complainant.  It is  in  this context  that  it was urged before the Bar Council of  India that  some hand- writing expert be examined in order to find out  the  genuineness  of the signature on  Ext.   C-4.   As stated  above, the cheque bounced not on account of the fact that  the  signature on Ext.  C-4 was not tallying with  the specimen  signature of the appellant kept with the Bank, but on account of insufficient funds.  Had the signature on Ext. C-4  been  different, the bank would have returned the  same with  the  remark  that the signature on Ext.  C-4  was  not tallying  with the appellants specimen signature kept  with the  bank.  The memos Ext.  C-6 and Ext.  C-8 issued by  the bank  clearly  show that signature of the appellant on  Ext. C-4  was  not  objected  to by the bank, but  the  same  was returned   with  the  remark   insufficient  fund.    This circumstance  shows that the signature on Ext.  C-4 was that of the appellant.

     (3) The complainant was not beneficiary of Ex.  C/4.

     As  seen  earlier the cheque Ext.  C-4, issued by  the appellant  was in favour of M/s.  Siemens Employees  Union, New  Delhi.   The  account payee cheque  obviously  was  not issued  in  the name of the complainant.  By  the  aforesaid cheque the complainant was not going to gain anything out of it.   The  amount normally would have been credited  in  the account of M/s.  Siemens Employees Union, New Delhi.  Thus, this  circumstance  also shows that there was no reason  for the  complainant to forge the signature of the appellant  on Exts.  C-1, C-2 and C-4.

     4)  No reply to the notices (Exts.C-12 and C-13) dated 9.6.93 and 11.1.93, respectively.

     The  complainant  sent  two notices on behalf  of  M/s Siemens  Union  to  the appellant wherein  she  inter  alia alleged,  that a sum of Rs.  25,102/- was misappropriated by the  appellant under the pretext of payment of the court fee for the suit filed by the plaintiffs, that the appellant did not  press  the  application for injunction,  and  that  the appellant  misled the complainant as regards the progress of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

the  case.   These  notices  were  not  replied  to  by  the appellant  which  is  a material  circumstance  against  the appellant when, receipt of the notices sent to him have been admitted.

     5)  No  FIR lodged with regard to theft of the  cheque book.

     The  case  set  up  by the appellant  before  the  Bar Council  was that, in fact, the complainant somehow  managed to  get his cheque book and she after forging his  signature on  one  of  the  leaf presented the same to  the  bank  for payment.   If  it was true, why did the appellant not  lodge any  FIR with the Tilak Marg Police Station regarding  theft of  the cheque book.  However, it was subsequently explained by the appellant that he did send a letter to the SHO of the said  Police  Station.   But, in normal course, FIR  is  not lodged  by  letter  at the first instance.   Moreover,  SHO, Tilak  Marg Police Station gave a certificate Ext.  C-14, to the  effect that he did not receive any registered letter or report  from  the  appellant regarding theft of  his  cheque book.

     These  established circumstances stated above, clearly show that the signature on Exts.  C-1, C-2 and C-4 were that of  the  appellant himself.  Moreover, during the course  of hearing  of the case, we ourselves examined and compared the admitted  signature of the appellant with that of Ext.   C-4 leaving  nothing  to chance lest any injustice is caused  to the  appellant.  On comparison, we found striking similarity between  the admitted signature and that of the disputed one and  there  is  no reason to doubt the  genuineness  of  the signature  on  Ext.  C-4.  The circumstances established  in the present case speak for themselves and candidly point out towards the misconduct committed by the appellant.  When the established  circumstantial  evidence is so patent  that  it leads to only one conclusion that the signature on Ext.  C-4 was  not forged;  there was no need for an opinion of a hand writing  expert.   We  are, therefore,  satisfied  that  the established   circumstantial  evidence  as   well   as   the documentary  evidence  in  the present case  show  that  the allegations  of the complainant were well substantiated  and in  such circumstances of the case, the Bar Council of India was  justified in declining to summon a hand-writing  expert for  finding  out the genuineness of the signature  on  Ext. C-4.

     Shri   R.K.Jain,   learned   senior   counsel,   while concluding  his  argument prayed that we may take a  lenient view  of  the matter in view of the fact that the  appellant has  deposited  the entire money covered by Ext.  C-4.   The learned  counsel  also gave an undertaking on behalf of  the appellant that he would not repeat such a conduct.

     The  legal  profession is known as a noble  profession having  high traditions and has been catering to the need of the  society for a very long time past.  Thus the members of this  profession are expected to uphold those traditions and serve  the society with sincerity and honestly.  If such are the  expectations from a noble profession, its members  must conduct  themselves  which may be worthy of  emulation.   By doing  any  act which is contrary to the accepted norms  and standards of this profession, a member of the profession not only  discredits  himself, but also brings disrepute to  the profession   to  which  he  belongs.    By  such  acts   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

credibility  and  reputation  of the profession as  a  whole comes  under  cloud.  If any member of the profession  falls from  such  standards, he deserves  punishment  commensurate with  the  gravity  of misconduct.  Initially, we  were  not inclined to interfere with the order under appeal.  However, since  the  appellants counsel has given an undertaking  on behalf  of  the appellant to the effect that  the  appellant would  conform to the standards of the legal profession  and further,  he has deposited a sum of Rs.  40,000/- to be paid to  the  plaintiffs of the suit, we modify the order of  the Disciplinary  Committee, Bar Council of India of  suspending the  appellants licence to practice for a period five years by  reducing  it  to  two and a  half  years,  provided  the appellant  also  deposits  interest on Rs.   38,000/-  w.e.f 31.3.93  till the date of payment of money to the plaintiffs @  Rs.  9% per annum.  The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.  40,000/- in the Court which has been invested in a fixed deposit of a nationalised bank.  The amount over and above Rs.  38,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court and  an  interest  accrued  on the fixed  deposit  shall  be adjusted  towards  interest payable by the  appellant.   The balance  amount,  if  any, shall be paid  by  the  appellant within  one  month from the date of this judgment.  In  case the appellant fails to deposit the aforestated amount within the  stipulated  period, our order reducing  the  suspension period  of  the appellants licence to practice would  stand recalled  and  all  the consequences provided in  the  order under  appeal  shall come into effect.  The appellant  shall also  deposit  the  cost as awarded by the  Bar  Council  of India, as well as the costs of this appeal.

     The  appeal  is,  therefore,  allowed  in  part.   The appellant  shall pay cost to the claimant which we  quanitfy at Rs.5,000/-.