Equivalent Citation: AIR2003SC308, 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)777, 2003 1 AWC(Supp)422SC, 2003(1)CGLJ117, 95(2003)CLT273(SC), 101(2002)DLT164(SC), JT2002(9)SC619, (2003)1MLJ184(SC), (2003)1SCC384, 2003(1)UJ331, 2003(2)WLN706 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 29.11.2002
Appellants: Vikas Deshpande
Respondent: Bar Council of India and Ors.
V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan, JJ.
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Party in perso
For Respondents/Defendant: V.B. Joshi, Adv. for Respondent No. 2 Subject: Civil
Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35, Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35(3), Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35B, Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 38 Disposition:
Advocates Act, 1961 - Section 35 -- Professional misconduct--Complainants requesting Court of Session for appointment of amicus curiae to defend them in murder trial--But complainants convicted and sentenced to death--Appellant advocate meeting them in jail and getting vakalatnama signed by them to prefer appeal to High Court without charging any fee--Again meeting them and getting their signatures on blank papers--Appellant selling land of complainants on basis of alleged power-of-attorney executed by complainants in his favour--And appropriating sale proceeds as his fee--Bar Council of India directing State Bar Council for removal of his name from roll of Bar Council--Whether justified?--Held, “yes”--Appellant committed grave professional misconduct--No merit in appeal. The appellant has failed to lead any evidence to displace the testimony of Vidhyadhar, complainant to the effect that the appellant had solicited a brief for himself from them and they had not executed any power-of-attorney in his favour for the purpose of the sale of their land. He had obtained signatures and thumb impressions of the complainants on some documents. Without informing and to the knowledge of the complainants, a power-of-attorney was got executed in favour of the appellant to sell off the land. The power-of-attorney was obtained by the appellant on misrepresentation. In pursuance of the alleged power-of-attorney in his favour, the appellant sold the land of the complainants fraudulently. It is also established that fees of the appellant had not been settled at Rs. 50,000. He was neither entitled nor justified in selling the land of the complainants on the basis of the alleged power-of-attorney for the recovery of his fees. Had the intention of the complainants been to sell the land, then they would not have requested for appointment of an amicus curiae to defend them before the sessions court. Appellant took advantage of the situation that the complainants facing death sentence and obtained the power-of-attorney on misrepresentation in his favour and sold the property of the complainants. Further, the appellant fraudulently appropriated the sale proceeds for his gain. He has committed a grave professional misconduct. JUDGMENT
1. This appeal has been filed by Vikas Deshpande, advocate hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant', under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961, [for short 'the Act'] against the final order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in BCI/TRC No. 51 of 1995 dated 3rd January, 2001. By the impugned order the Bar Council of India has permanently debarred the appellant from the practising as an advocate for the commission of a grave professional misconduct and also imposed the cost of Rs. 25,000/-. Facts:
2. Ramrao Chandoba Jadhav, Vidyadhar Ramrao Jadhav, and Chandrakant Rmadeo Jadhav (all deceased), hereinafter referred to as "the complainants", were prosecuted for committing murder of six persons on 16th December, 1990 at village Mandgi, Taluka-Degloor, District-Nanded. Complainants requested the Sessions Court for appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae to defend them as they were unable...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document