# Dectmber 3 '.954 , ·Bhataraju N ageshwara Rao v. The· !/qn'bleJudgts of t!M Madras High. Court and Qtlurs

- **Citation:** [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1055
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1955
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1954
- **Bench:** MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, VIVIAN BosE
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dectmber-3-954-bhataraju-n-ageshwara-rao-v-the-qn-blejudgts-of-t-m-madras-high-297
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Procedu·re-Supreme Court-Suspension of Advocate by High
Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Respondents to be impleaded in
such appeal-Indian Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926), s. 12.
y
It is wrong and inappropriate to implead the Judges of the High
"" Court as respondents in an appeal preferred to the Supreme Court by
an Advocate against whom .an order of suspension was passed by the
High Court under s. 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. In
such appeal the proper respondents are the complainant if any, the
Bar Council or Secretary thereof and the Advocate-General of the
State concerned.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 146 of 1954.
·-+
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment
and
..
Order dated the 17th day of
December, 1952,
of
the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Referred
Case
No. 45 of 1952 arising out
of the
Report dated
the
27th day of March, .1951, of the
Court
of
District
Judge, Krishna in C.M.P; No. 123 of 1951.
S. P. Sinha,
(K. R. Chaudhary and Sardar
Bahadur, with him), for the appellant .
.,.:;
R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, for
respondent No. L
1954
Budhan GhOudhry
and Others
v·.
TheSta~'oj
Bihar
Das].
1954
Dectmber 3
'.954
, ·Bhataraju
N ageshwara Rao
v.
The· !/qn'bleJudgts
of t!M Madras
High. Court and
Qtlurs
Das J.
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[.1955]
T. Satyanarayana and P. G.
Gokhale, for
re'spon·
dent No. 3 •.
1954.' December 3. The
Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAs J.'-This is an appeal by special \eave frorri an
order made by a Special Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras
under section 12 of ·the
Indian
Bar Councils
Act· (Act XXXVIII of 1926) debarring
the appellant from
practising as
ah advocate for
a.
period of ·five years.
The material facts are these.
T~~ appellant before
us is an advocate ordinarily · practismg
at
Masaulipatam.
In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1949 on the file of
the
Additional
First
Class
Magistrate's
Cqurt
at
Masaiilipatam nin'e · persons · were :charged · with
the
offence of cortveying rice from the
village
to
other
villages without permits.
Accused .Nos. 2 and
4 were
not represented by any · advocate.
Accused Nos.
1, 3,
5, 6 and 8, all cart-men, were defended by .. the. appellant.
Accused
No.· 7,
who initiated the
proceedings:
out of which ·the present appeal
arises
and
who is;
hereinafter referred
to
as "the petitioner",
was defended· by · another ad vacate.
The
case
was disposed'
•of on the 30th September, · 1949.
Accused
Nos. 1, 3,
5 and 6 were acquitted.
Accused No. 2 was convicted·
and sentenced to a fine of
Rs. 20 and
m
default of
payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for
one month.
Accused No. 4 and the petitioner, accused'.
No. 7; were also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of firie toundergo simple imprisoll1I)ent for six months. · Accused
No. 8 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. and in
default of payment of the fine, to
simple' imprison-·
rnent for three months.· Accused No. 2 paid . the
fine·
but the other three
convicted
persons . did ·not.
The
four convicted persons including the petitioner
there-.
after .engaged the appellant to prefer an appeal to the
Sessions ·Court. ·The appeal was presented
before the
Sessions Court on the 8th October, 1949 and. on the
same-day a. petition was filed on .. behalf
of'. accused
Nos. 4, 7 (petitioner) and 8 for an order staying
the,
•
I
•
-
-
---.'
' '
-+ ..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1057
.realisation of the . fine. . , That application . for . stay
came up. before the learned Sessions Judge· on· the 10th.
October, 1949 when .notice was directed . , to· : issue . ta
the Public · Prose~utor. On, the. 11th. ·October,. 1949 ·the
learned. Judge passed ·the .following order: .
'
"Suspended
pending
disposal ·of
this :petition.
Call on .14. 10''.
On the 14th October, 1949 •the following. further order
was passed :-
"Execution . of
sentences ·suspended· ·'till disposal
of appeal".
The. appeal was
posted ·for .hearing
on . the 25th
Novem

## Text

-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1055
superior
Courts of orders passed by the
Courts.
In such
circumstances,
there is
ground for · apprehending any
capnc1ous
tion by judicial tribunals.
Subordinate
hardly
any
discriminaOn the facts and circumstances of this case we find
<>Urselves in agreement with S. K. Das, J., and Reuben,
C.J., and hold that no case of infringement of fundamental right under Article 14 has been made out.
In
the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal. .
Appeal dismissed.
BHATARAJU NAGESHWARA RAO
fl.
1
THE HON'BLE JUDGES OF THE MADRAS
HIGH COURT AND OTHERS.
[MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs and VIVIAN BosE JJ.]
Procedu·re-Supreme Court-Suspension of Advocate by High
Court-Appeal to Supreme Court-Respondents to be impleaded in
such appeal-Indian Bar Councils Act (XXXVIII of 1926), s. 12.
y
It is wrong and inappropriate to implead the Judges of the High
"" Court as respondents in an appeal preferred to the Supreme Court by
an Advocate against whom .an order of suspension was passed by the
High Court under s. 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. In
such appeal the proper respondents are the complainant if any, the
Bar Council or Secretary thereof and the Advocate-General of the
State concerned.
CIVIL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION :
Civil
Appeal
No. 146 of 1954.
·-+
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment
and
..
Order dated the 17th day of
December, 1952,
of
the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Referred
Case
No. 45 of 1952 arising out
of the
Report dated
the
27th day of March, .1951, of the
Court
of
District
Judge, Krishna in C.M.P; No. 123 of 1951.
S. P. Sinha,
(K. R. Chaudhary and Sardar
Bahadur, with him), for the appellant .
.,.:;
R. Ganapathy Iyer and P. G. Gokhale, for
respondent No. L
1954
Budhan GhOudhry
and Others
v·.
TheSta~'oj
Bihar
Das].
1954
Dectmber 3
'.954
, ·Bhataraju
N ageshwara Rao
v.
The· !/qn'bleJudgts
of t!M Madras
High. Court and
Qtlurs
Das J.
1056
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[.1955]
T. Satyanarayana and P. G.
Gokhale, for
re'spon·
dent No. 3 •.
1954.' December 3. The
Judgment of the Court
was delivered by
DAs J.'-This is an appeal by special \eave frorri an
order made by a Special Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras
under section 12 of ·the
Indian
Bar Councils
Act· (Act XXXVIII of 1926) debarring
the appellant from
practising as
ah advocate for
a.
period of ·five years.
The material facts are these.
T~~ appellant before
us is an advocate ordinarily · practismg
at
Masaulipatam.
In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1949 on the file of
the
Additional
First
Class
Magistrate's
Cqurt
at
Masaiilipatam nin'e · persons · were :charged · with
the
offence of cortveying rice from the
village
to
other
villages without permits.
Accused .Nos. 2 and
4 were
not represented by any · advocate.
Accused Nos.
1, 3,
5, 6 and 8, all cart-men, were defended by .. the. appellant.
Accused
No.· 7,
who initiated the
proceedings:
out of which ·the present appeal
arises
and
who is;
hereinafter referred
to
as "the petitioner",
was defended· by · another ad vacate.
The
case
was disposed'
•of on the 30th September, · 1949.
Accused
Nos. 1, 3,
5 and 6 were acquitted.
Accused No. 2 was convicted·
and sentenced to a fine of
Rs. 20 and
m
default of
payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for
one month.
Accused No. 4 and the petitioner, accused'.
No. 7; were also convicted and sentenced to pay a fine
of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of firie toundergo simple imprisoll1I)ent for six months. · Accused
No. 8 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. and in
default of payment of the fine, to
simple' imprison-·
rnent for three months.· Accused No. 2 paid . the
fine·
but the other three
convicted
persons . did ·not.
The
four convicted persons including the petitioner
there-.
after .engaged the appellant to prefer an appeal to the
Sessions ·Court. ·The appeal was presented
before the
Sessions Court on the 8th October, 1949 and. on the
same-day a. petition was filed on .. behalf
of'. accused
Nos. 4, 7 (petitioner) and 8 for an order staying
the,
•
I
•
-
-
---.'
' '
-+ ..
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1057
.realisation of the . fine. . , That application . for . stay
came up. before the learned Sessions Judge· on· the 10th.
October, 1949 when .notice was directed . , to· : issue . ta
the Public · Prose~utor. On, the. 11th. ·October,. 1949 ·the
learned. Judge passed ·the .following order: .
'
"Suspended
pending
disposal ·of
this :petition.
Call on .14. 10''.
On the 14th October, 1949 •the following. further order
was passed :-
"Execution . of
sentences ·suspended· ·'till disposal
of appeal".
The. appeal was
posted ·for .hearing
on . the 25th
November, 1949 and was adjourned from time · to time.
Eventually,
it was .finally
heard on the · 13th July,
1950 wl).en the appeal.was allowed 'and the conviction
and sentences of all the appellants were set .·.aside .. · On
the 25th January, 1951 . the petitioner caused. a registered notice (Ex. A/2) to be sent. to the appellant
alleging that on the 11th October, 1949 the appellant
had represented to him that the Court had refused to
suspend the 'sentences . and that ·unless the amount· of
fine was deposited the petitioner
would be sent to jail.
It was further alleged . that on such representation
the
petitioner had on that day paid to the appellant . · a
sum of Rs. 300 for which the . appellant·· had passed to
the petitioner a chit (Ex. A/l.) under his own signature acknowledging receipt of the said sum. The chit
(Ex. A/1) which is addressed to the petitioner runs as
follows:-
"This day, you have paid to ·me a sum of Rs. 300
(three hundred rupees only)".
It is signed by the appellant and below his signature
appears the date 11th October 1949 and the time 5-15
P.M. is also mentioned below the signature. The allegation in the
registered
notice
further was
that the
appellant had concealed from the petitioner
the · fact
that the order for payment of fine had been suspended
until the hearing of the appeal and also that the appeal had eventually been allowed.
. The notice. ended
with a threat that if the appellant failed. to rehlrn the
sum of Rs. 300 together with interest . at. . 12 per cent.
per annum . from the 11th · October 1949 up ;to date of
1954
Bhataraju
.
Na'grshwara Rao
' , ..
ll.·
-
'
Tlui Hon'ble Judge:;
qf the Madras
'High Court and
Others
Das J.
1954
Bhataraju
Nageshwara Rao
v.
"[he Hon'ble Judges
of the Madras
High Court and
-
Others
Das J.
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
payment the petitioner would be constrain~d, · in addition to such other
proceedings as he . may be advised
to take for recovery of the said amount, to complain
against the appellant
and his unprofessional
conduct
to the High Court and the Bar Council.
This notice
was received by the appellant on the
12th
February
1951 and on the next day,
13th
February 1951,
the
appellant issued three registered notices
Exs. A/3, A/4
and A/5 to the petitioner.
In
Ex. A/5 the
appellant
complained that the petitioner had
been evading payment of the agreed fee of Rs. 150 and on firm demand
having been made by the appellant on the 21st January 1951
for payment
of such fee before the 25th
January 1951 the petitioner had issued the
registered
notice Ex. A/2.
In Ex. A/4 the appellant alleged that
the petitioner instructed the appellant
to file a stay
petition as the · petitioner was unable to pay the fine
and that the appellant filed the petition accordingly
and obtained a stay order about
which the petitioner
was fully aware.
In those
circumstances
the
allegations
contained
in the
petitioner's
notice
Ex. A/2
were false ·and highly defamatory.
He further alleged
that the petitioner was also present in
Court on the
13th July 1950 when the appeal was allowed.
In the
circumstances, there was no need
for
·the petitioner
to pay any money to the
appellant for the
purpose
of paying the fine.
The appellant
called
upon
the
petitioner to withdraw the allegations
and tender
an
unqualified apology
immediately.
In Ex.
A/3
the
appellant stated that the petitioner had come to him
on the 6th October 1949 to engage him as his advocate
for filing an appeal.
Seeing that
the appellant· was
then pressed for money for
payinent of an instalment
of a loan No. 616 to the Land Mortgage Bank, Pedana;
the petitioner volunteered
to arrange for a loan of
Rs. 300 for the appellant at Pedana. and asked him to
give a chit in his favour and to send the
appellant's
derk with the petitioner.
The petitioner did not, however, succeed in arranging for any money but the chit
Ex. A/1 remained with him. There was a denial that
there was any consideration for the chit Ex. A/I. On
the 7th March 1951 the petitioner sent a reply generally.
•
I
y
•
-
'
-
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1059
denying the allegations contained in the three several
notices sent by the appellant to the
petitioner.
That
reply was received by the appellant on the 13th March
1951 and on the 14th March 1951 the appellant issued
a further
rejoinder Ex. A/7 denying
the allegations
in the petitioner's reply and stating
that the
statements in his three notices were true.
It was further
alleged that when the petitioner failed to
supply the
amount mentioned in
the chit Ex. A/1 the appellant
asked him to return the chit but the
petitioner
said
that the chit was missing and that he would
search
for it and return it subsequently
and
so
saying the
petitioner gave the appellant on the 16th October
1949
a hand letter (Ex. D /8) admitting that the petitioner
was unable to supply the amount of Rs. 300 mentioned
in the said chit as promised.
The petitioner
did not
send any reply to this letter in spite of the fact
that
the appellant had
therein
referred to a hand letter
(Ex. D/8) dated the 16th October 1949 which totally
nullified the value of the chit Ex. A/I.
The petitioner then on the 27th March, 1951 sent a
petition to the High Court making a complaint against
the appellant of professional misconduct and praying
that the Hon'ble High Court might be pleased to order
an enquiry
into
the
allegations
made
in his complaint and to take such action against
the
appellant
as was necessary and expedient
in the
circumstances
of the case.
Along with the petition
were submitted
a photograph of the chit Ex. A/1 and copies
of the
registered correspondence
that passed
between
the
petitioner and
the appellant.
Even in this
pet1t10n
the petitioner did not refer to
the
hand letter
(Ex.
D/8) of the 16th October 1949 and did not specifically
deny having written
the same.
Upon
the presentation of the petition the appellant submitted a written
explanation before the
High Court. The High Court,
under section 10 of the
Indian Bar Councils Act, referred the matter to the District
Judge to enquire into the allegations made in the petition and to submit
a repo1t.
The District Judge issued a notice to the appellant
setting forth the following charges :-
Jg54
Bhataraju
Nageshwara Rao ·
v.
The Hon'ble Judg.s
qfThe Madras
High Court and
Others
Das J•
1954
Bhataraju
Nages_hwara ·RdO.
v.
The Hon'ble Jndges
ofthtMadras
High Court and
Others)
pas J.
1060
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
[i9551
"l. That you have · suppressed · fraudulently
the
order 0£ the Additional
Sessions
Judge,
Krishna
at
Masaulipatam, suspending payment of
fine of
Rs. · 300
and made in Crl.. M. P. No. 180 of 1949 in C:A. No. 82
of 1949 preferred against the conv1Ct1on
and sentence
passed
by
the
Additional
First
Class
Magistrate,
Bandar, in C.C. No. 1 of 1949, on his file,
against the
petitioner, who is the seventh accused therein ;
2. That
you,
having
fraudulently
suppressed
the above stated fact, have
represented
to the
petitioner that the amount of fine of
Rs. 300
had to be
deposited into Court on pain of the
pet1t10ner
being
sent to jail and received the said sum of Rs. 300 from
him and passed a· receipt in his favour for the same;
3. That you, even though the above said C.A. No.
82 of 1949 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Krishna at Masaulipatam was
allowed
by the judgment dated 13-7-1950, having all knowledge about it
did not inform the petitioner
that
the said C.A. No.
82 of 1949 was disposed of, and later on informed him
that it was dismissed,
and
the conviction and
sentence were confirmed ;
4. That you,
therefore,
wrongfully withheld the
amount of Rs. 300 belonging to the
petitioner
without depositing into Court as represented
by you and
also without refunding it to the petitioner even after
the said appeal was allowed in spite
of
repeated
requests and demands made by him, and
5. That you have falsely set up a plea of not having received the said sum of Rs. 300
from
the
petitioner, for which you have passed a
receipt
in his
favour, and later on set up that you wanted to borrow
the said amount from him during the
subsistence
of
the relationship of advocate and client, which (borrowing from a client) itself is prohibited by law".
The petitioner
examined
himself
(P.\V. 1) and his
brother Potharaju (P.W. 2) as his witnesses
in support of the allegations in the petition.
The appellant
examined himself (R. W. 1) and his clerk D Venkatarangam (R. W. 2), Kameswararao, the secertary of the
Vadlamannadu Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank at
•
..
'<
I
y
•
-
...
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1061
~ Pedana (R.W. 3) and Venktadri, clerk
of an advocate
(R.W. 4) in support of his defence.
·
· ·
On a consideration of 'the entire evidence the learned
District
Judge found that the testimony · of the
petitioner and his brother was not credible
and
acceptable and that there was' no · reason. to reject the
._ ·-(
testimony of the appellant
and his clerk
and
other
"" " witnesses and he came to the
conclusion that it had
not been satisfactorily proved that the ·appellant' was
guilty of any of the charges· framed against him. The
District Judge sent a report accordingly.
'
The matter was placed before a Special
Bench
of
the Madras High Court.
The Special Bench had no
hesitation in agreeing with the findings of the learned
r
District Judge on charges 1, 2 and 3.
In their opinion
'
much reliance could not be placed on the
veracity
of
the complainant himself.
The
High Court, in agreement with the learned
District Judge, held that the
appellant was
not guilty
of the first
three · charges.
Coming to the last two charges the learned Judges
were struck by several facts,
namely,
(i) the passing
of two receipts for two sums of money each of Rs. 300
"
which were identical with the amount of fine imposed
...., on each of the accused Nos. 4 and 7 (petitioner)
and
(ii) the date of payment, namely,
the
11th October
1949 on which date the petitioner and the fourth accused had to deposit the. fine.
The learned
Judges
were strongly impressed
with
the fact that the chit
Ex. A/1 had been allowed to remain with the
petitioner. The High Court also noted that if the arrange-
-+
ment was that the
appellant's clerk would
pass
a
' formal stamped receipt after getting the
money
there
'
was no necessity to issue an informal receipt in favour
of the petitioner in advance. The learned
Judges further pointed out that in none of the three
notices
dated the
13th February 1951 any reference had been
made by the appellant to the
hand letter (Ex. D/8)
dated the 16th· October 1949.
The
High · Court concluded that the failure to mention
this hand letter in
~· the earliest
reply by the
appellant cast considerable
doubt on the genuineness of the document
and consequently the Court could not act on the basis that it
Bhataraju
N ageshwara Rao
v.
The Hon' bit Judges
of the Madras
High Court and
Others
DasJ; ·
1954
Bhataraju
Nageskwara Rao
v.
Th< Hon'ble Judges
of the Madras
High Court and
Others
DasJ.
1062
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
contained a true statement of facts admitted
by
the
Y
pet1t1oner.
The High Court also referred to
several
other minor points suggesting
the improbability
of
the appellant's story. The
High Court held that
the
1
appellant
had received a sum of Rs. 300 from
the
",
'r.
_,
.
I
.,
petitioner on the 11th
October 1949
as acknowledged
by the appellant in the chit Ex. A/1. The High Court
accordingly held that charges Nos. 4 and 5
had been
proved against the appellant and passed orders against
the appellant
debarring him from
practising
as an
advocate for five years.
The appellant has now ·preferred this appeal after having
obtained
special leave.
from this Court.
·• .f
-
We have been taken through the evidence by learned advocates appearing on both sides.
It appears
to
"
us that while there are some facts
which cast
some
I
doubt on the version of the appellant
there are other
•
material facts
completely
overlooked
by
the l;:ligh
Court which nevertheless have a material bearing""' on
the truthfulness or falsity of the complainant's
story.
It is true that the appellant did not refer to the hand
letter (Ex. D /8) in his replies
Exs. A/3, A/4
and
A/5 to the petitioner's letter Ex. A/2, but the appely
!ant did refer to it in his rejoinder Ex. A/7' of the 14th •·
March 1951.
It is significant that the petitioner
did
not send any reply to this last rejoinder and deny the
allegations definitely made by the
appellant.
It
is
further significant that the petitioner
did
not deny
the genuineness of the hand letter Ex. D /8 even in his
petition.
In
his evidence
the petitioner
admits
the
signature on the hand letter to be his own but states
•+
that it must have been made out by the
appellant on ;
a blank paper on which he had induced the petitioner
· ;
to put his signature on the representation
that
the
same would be used as a Vakalatnama. It is very difficult to accept this story
because
the petitioner knew
from his experience as an accused in thf trial
Court
that no Vakalatnama was required in a criminal case.
Nor has any of the other appellants been produ~ed as
a witness to say that
any such signature
was
taken
from any of them on blank paper.
Further, the peti-
,i.,.
tioner was present in Court on the 11th October when
..
r -
~·
•
_.,.
-
0
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1063
the interim stay order was made.
Ex. A/1 bears the
hour 5-15
P.M. below the signature of
the
appellant
which shows that that chit came into existence after
court hours. It is utterly impossible to believe that the
petitioner would deposit
Rs. 300 with his new advocate in spite of the fact that in the earlier part of the
day the interim order for stay had
been made.
It is
also significant
that accused
No. 4 who
is
also
alleged to have paid
Rs. 300 to the appellant
for a
similar purpose has not
been called as
a witness
to
corroborate
the evidence of the
petitioner
and
his
brother.
The question of the ability of the petitioner
to advance
Rs. 300 is one of great importance in this
case.
The
petitioner is not a
man
of means.
He
alleged that he had raised the sum of Rs. 300 by selling some miscellaneous gold.
No goldsmith
or shroff
was called to produce his books and give evidence
m
corroboration
of the petitioner and his
brother.
Indeed, the petitioner could not even mention the name
of any shroff to whom he is supposed to have sold his
gold.
The
High Court completely
overlooked
this
aspect of the matter and in the absence of
satisfac~
tory evidence showing that the petitioner was in a
position to pay the sum of Rs. 300 it will be extreme1 y risky to hold that the fact of payment of
Rs. 300
by the petitioner to the appellant
has
been
proved
only because there are some
weaknesses in the appellant's story.
The appellant's story
that he
required
Rs. 600 to be paid to the
Land
Mortgage
Bank
is
supported by the secretary of the Land Mortgage Bank
(R.W. 3) who stated i:hat the appellant had informed
him that he had raised Rs. 300 only and
that a person who had promised to arrange for a loan
of
Rs.
300 had failed to do so and that
the appellant
had
asked
his
advice as to what he was to do. The
" secretary then told the appellant that as he had made
an excess payment in 1948 towards and on account
of the principal it would be enough
if he
paid
the
amount of Rs. 377/9/- which the appellant had. It is
significant that the Bank's records
show
that the
appellant had paid only- Rs. 377/9/- into the
Bank on
the 4th November, 1949. If the petitioner had paid
12--89 S. C. India/59
Bhatara;u
N' ageshwarM Rao
v.
The Hon' bl< Judgs
of the Madras ~
High Court and
Others
Das].
1954
Bhataraju
Nagesfzwara Rao
v.
The Hon'ble Judges
of the Madras
High Court and
Others
Das].
1064
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19551
Rs. 300 to the appellant there
would have
been no
reason why the appellant should not have
paid
the
entire Rs. 600 towards his liability
to the Bank.
The
learned District Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and hearing the evidence
disbelieved
the
evidence
of
the petitioner and his brother and
we see no compelling reason to take a different view
of it.
On the facts and circumstances
of this case we
think that charges 4 and 5 have
not
been
brought
home to the appellant or, at any rate,
the
appellant
is entitled
to the benefit of the doubt.
In the circumstances, we hold that
the
order
passed by the
High Court should be reversed and we direct that
the
complaint against the
appellant
do stand
dismissed
as not proved.
Before parting with this appeal we desire to say
that it appears to
us that it was wholly
wrong
and
inappropriate for the appellant
to
have
made
the
Honourable
Judges
of the
Madras
High Court respondents to this appeal. It appears that in some cases
involving contempt of Court the Honourable
Judges
have been made parties.
It is not necessary for us to
express any opinion on this occasion
as to the propriety of that procedure in contempt cases but we are
clearly of the opinion that in· an appeal arising out of
a proceeding under the
Bar
Councils
Act the appropriate parties should be the advocate
concerned,
the
complainant, if any, the Bar Council or the secretary
thereof and the
Advocate-General
of the
State concerned to whom notices have to be issued u,,;der section 12(3) of the Indian Bar Councils Act.
Appeal allowed.
,•
..
Ir