1. Proceedings under section 35 of the Advocates' Act 1961 was No. 59/1989 before the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the State Council prima facie felt satisfied and, inferred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee in its General Body meeting held on 12-8-1989 which shows that on account of dilatory tactics adopted by the charged Advocate, it could not dispose of the matter within the stipulated period as contemplated u/s 36B of the Advocates' Act and ultimately the matter came up before the Bar Council of India and registered as BCI Tr. Case No.40/1991. Perusal of the, order sheet shows that in spite of several notices sent to the charged advocate, he not participate in the proceedings and consequently matter proceeded ex-parte against him. The Disciplinary Committee of the Council of India in its meeting held on 13th January, 1996 framed the following issues:-
a. Whether the Respondent has stated any falsehood before the i Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Nainital for illegal gains?
b. Whether the respondent has committed any fraud in mis-representing the facts deliberately before the Tribunal? [
c. Whether the respondent has committed any professional misconduct? .
2. since all the issues are inter related and specially in the background that no evidence has been led in defense, all the issues dealt simultaneously.
3. A copy of the judgment delivered by the learned District Judge dated 2-12-1987 is on record which seems to have been passed in a Review Petition. Perusal of the Judgement shows that in a Motor Accident one Mohsin Ali Khan s/o Mohd. Ali Khan, resident of Mohalla Bazar, Baheri, Distt. Bareilly received injuries in a motor Accident on 11-9-1983 at Kichha Tiraha Kichha, P.S.Kichha on the leading from the said Tiraha to Bareilly. As a result of which ubsequently died Motor Accident. Case being No. 14/1982 was initially initiated by the said Mohsin Ali Khan s/o Mohd. Ali Khan Mohalla Bazar, Behari, District Bareilly in respect of injuries said to have been sustained by him in a motor accident at about 5.30.on 19-9-1981 at Behari on the road leading from Nainital to Bareilly. It was also all ged that on account of the injuries received 19-9-1981 Mohsin Ali Khun was literally crippled and lanently disabled. An application (16 Kha) being on the file on M.A.C 14 of 1982 discloses that Mohbiu Ali Khan ultimately died on 28-4-83 as a result of the injuries sustained on 19-91981. This was an application for substitution which was later incorporated in the claim petition under the Tribunal's order dated 20-91983 by which Smt. Quisar Jahan Begum, widow of Mohsin Ali Khan, Quisar Bee and Salamma Bee daughters of Mohsin Ali and Ahasan Ali Khan s/o Mohsin Ali, Mohd. Ali Khan, father of Mohsin Ali.Khan and Smt. Nafis Begum, mother of Mohsin Ali Khan were brought on record. Another case being Motor Accident case No.21/1984 was instituted by the aforesaid Smt. Quisar Jahan, Km. Kausar Bee, Km. Sakama Bee and Ashan Ali Khan the Khan, the widow and minor daughter of Mohsin Ali Khan, on 27-2-84 where it was alleged that Mohsin Ali Khan met with a motor accident at 5 P.M. on 11-9-1983 at Tiraha Kichha on the road leading to Bareilly P.S.Kichha and sustained serious injuries including fracture. While the fact of the matter is that Mohsin Ali Khan had already died on 28-4-1983 as shown by the record of Motor Accident Case No.14/1982, it is obvious that he could not have been involved in the alleged accident alleged - to have occurred on 11-9-1983.
4. The first accident was alleged to have taken place with a Mini Bus No.USE.7725 which was insured by the New India Assurance Company, while the vehicle involved in the subsequent accident dated 1.1-983 was shown to be a Bus No.USM-6949 which was insured by M/s Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd.
5. Motor Accident Case' No.21/1984 was instituted through the charged Advocate, R, Bareilly. This was also brought on record that R is real brother of the deceased Mohsin Ali Khan. Since Mohsin Ali Khan had already expired on 28-4-1983, the subsequent accident dated 11-9-1983 for preferring the claim is obviously a manufactured incident. The Charged Advocate being real brother of Mohsin Ali Khan was definitely knowing about the death of his brother, on 28-4-83. It is obvious that charged advocate colluded with Smt. Qisar Jahan Began and the witness, Sri Bhagwat Saran Sharma, in obtaining an award from the Tribunal on 21-2-86 in Motor Accident case No.21/84. There is no doubt that subsequent award dated 21-2-86 was obtained by way of fraud by the charged advocate and by the claimants. The aforesaid fraud came to the light when M/s Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd., applied for quashing the subsequent award dated 21-2-86 in Motor Accident Case No.21/1984 as a result of which the same was ultimately quashed.
6. This was obviously a case of fraud as a result of which learned District Judge referred the matter to the Bar Council of U.P. for drawing misconduct proceedings against R, Advocate.
7. In a short reply submitted by the charged Advocate, apart from denying the fact, apology has been sought.
8. In recent past it has been experienced that in the cases of Motor Accident Claim, the role of the lawyers in some of the cases has not been up to the mark. Cases of misappropriation of money by the lawyers awarded by way of compensation were frequently being brought to the notice of the Bar Council of India as a result of which necessary amendments were made in the practice of preparation o$ cheques in the name of Claimant's counsel to the claimants themselves, which has now been adopted. The facts of the above noted case are peculiar in nature and same cannot be dealt softly and casually. The charged advocate, who has taken the matter very lightly, though serious in nature and has not led any effective evidence in support of his defence, a word of apology cannot exonerate him from the charge levelled against him. Under the circumstances, committee is of the view that the charged advocate should be debarred for a period of two years from the date of the notification of the order. The information to this effect be sent to the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, District Judge, Bareilly, District Judge, Nainital, President, Bar Association, Bareilly District, President, Bar Association, Nainital, etc,