Mehar Singh, J.
1. A case under Section 494 of the Penal Code, Kuldip Kaur v. Karanvir Singh of Patiala was tried in the Court of Thakar Surat Ram Mehantan, Magistrate of the First Class at Nahan in Sirmur District. The learned Magistrate, while convicting the accused in that case on 31-10-1957, passed certain strictures against Mr. Sat Pal, Advocate of Patiala, who was defending the accused in that case. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present order to detail the strictures except to say that, if correct, they amounted to professional misconduct on the part of Mr. Sat Pal Advocate.
2. An endorsement of 16-5-1960 from the Punjab Government was received in the office of this Court sending a letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, making reference to a complaint by Joginder Singh, son of Anokh Singh, Gher Sodhi Hira Singh, Lahori Gate, Patiala in regard to the strictures passed by the learned Magistrate against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. That letter is dated 21-4-10,60. With that letter was the complaint of Joginder Singh thumb-marked by him and also a copy of judgment of the learned Magistrate. It appears that a certified copy of the judgment was then obtained. In the meantime Joginder Singh sent a copy of his complaint to this Court which was received on 26-4-1960. On that complaint the matter was referred to the local Bar Council and its Secretary, by his letter of 13-8-1960, said that the Bar Council was of the opinion that an enquiry against Mr. Sat Pal under Section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act be held.
3. Accordingly the matter was referred to the District Judge of Patiala by a letter of 11-10-1960 from the office of this Court for an enquiry against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. The letter was --
'I am directed to forward herewith an attested copy of the judgment dated the 31st October, 1957, delivered by Shri Surat Ram Mahantan, Magistrate 1st Class, Sirmur District at Nahan in the case 'Kuldip Kaur v. Karanvir Singh of Patiala' instituted in his Court on the and March 1957, under Section 494 Indian Penal Code passing strictures against Shri Sat Pal Sehgal Advocate, Patiala, and to request you to please hold an enquiry into the matter after framing charges as required under the rules framed under Section 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926, and send an early report in this behalf to this Court.'
It is unfortunate that the learned District Judge was only asked to hold an enquiry on the basis of the strictures in the judgment of the learned Magistrate after framing charges against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate. The copy of the complaint of Joginder Singh was not sent nor was any reference to that complaint made in the letter from this Court. The State Government has been sending reminders wanting to know what has come of the enquiry. The Bar Council, as pointed out, had asked for an enquiry. These facts were not brought to the notice of the learned District Judge.
4. The result has been that the only enquiry that the learned District Judge has held is to obtain explanation of Mr. Sat Pal Advocate and thereafter he has made his report that the strictures were not well-founded and that no case of professional misconduct is made out against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate.
5. Today at the hearing of this case, Mr. Ganga Parshad Jain has appeared for the Bar Council, Mr. Nand Lal Salooja for the Advocate General and Mr. Partap Singh for Joginder Singh complainant. Their stand has been that in this case there really has been no enquiry and the learned District Judge could not merely dispose of the matter by taking the explanation of the Advocate concerned and then giving his findings in his report. The learned Counsel appearing for Mr. Sat Pal Advocate says that in the circumstances of the case when the report of the learned District Judge is considered with the judgment in the case and the facts of the case, there is really no case of professional misconduct against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate and he says that nobody appeared before the Learned District Judge to say anything about the allegations against the Advocate.
But it is obvious that the learned District Judge did not inform about the enquiry either Joginder Singh complainant or the Advocate General or the local Government Pleader or the Bar Council. This omission has probably been due to the fact that the letter of this Court requiring the learned District Judge to hold the enquiry did not give him particulars in this respect and he had no material on the basis of which he could issue a notice about the enquiry to any body.
6. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that there has not been a proper enquiry in this case. We, therefore, remit this case to the District Judge of Patiala to hold enquiry into the charges already framed by his predecessor against Mr. Sat Pal Advocate after notice to Joginder Singh complainant, whose address is given above the Bar Council and the Advocate General as also the local Government Pleader and after taking evidence, if they should produce any, and after hearing them he should then make a report in the enquiry. Of course, it goes without saying that he will give Mr. Sat Pal opportunity, of producing any evidence and also of representing his side of the case before him.
7. To avoid delay the counsel for Joginder Singh complainant, for the Bar Council and for the Advocate General as also for Mr. Sat Pal Advocate have been informed to appear before the District Judge of Patiala on 20-8-1962 and the learned District Judge will make every effort to make the report within a month from that date. Mr. Sat Pal Advocate is also present and he also has knowledge of this order. The file will now be immediately sent back to the District Judge of Patiala.
Shamsher Bahadur, J.
8. I agree.
Gurdev Singh, J.
9. I agree.