Facts of the case

  1. Appellant was public prosecutor in Hyderabad High Court.
  2. He was meeting an advocate named Vasanthi. He sometimes used to go at her home of Padma Colony. He had shown his willingness to marry Vasanthi.
  3. On account of appellant advocate’s harassment, she had shifted her home to Nalfanta from Padma Colony.
  4. She denied/refused his proposal of marriage hence he made a phone call to police on 06/03/1995 informing police wrongly that Vasanthi is running a brothel and her house should be raided and investigated.
  5. Police had raided her house accordingly and procedures were followed as per Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, 1956.
  6. Then on 03/04/1995, Appellant had gone Vasanthi’s home and told her to marry him and further warned that if she denied, then he would defame her just like above by making false allegations.
  7. Then there was wrangling, quarrel, exchange of hot words between them. So the neighbours complained police about such quarrel and consequently police registered the crime committed by the appellant u/s 448 (Punishment for house trespass- imprisonment upto 1 year or fine or both) and 509 (Word, Gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of woman – punishment same).

The question is whether such conduct or behaviour of appellant can be called professional misconduct or not.

Issues

When there can be called professional misconduct – breach of duty under section 35 of Advocates Act, 1961?

Decision of SBC DC (State Bar Council – Disciplinary Committee)s

As regards the charge of S. 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 levied on appellant, it was held that appellant is not guilty of house trespass as he was going to Vasanthi’s house now and then repeatedly and hence his visit to her house on 03/04/1995 cannot be considered to be house trespass.

As regards matter of pamphlets and advertisement published against Vasanthi or affecting the reputation of Vasanthi, State Bar Council DC found that such pamphlets were published even during the months before the publication was done by appellant against her, hence it can’t be said that her reputation was affected or she was insulted or defamed only by the pamphlets published by appellant.

Further, Vasanthi alleged that appellant also had drunk wine/liquor after going to her house and as regards this issue State Bar Council DC found that medical report did not support this fact i.e. intake of wine by appellant and liquid in the glass in which it was complained of having taken the wine by him was not examined. In addition to this, doctor who examined the appellant said that in the breath exhaled by the appellant, no odour of wine was coming from it.

In spite of this State Bar Council DC found that after the incident on 06/03/1995, when the appellant had visited her house on 03/04/1995, he was acting as public prosecutor in Hyderabad on account of which visit made by him to Vasanthi’s house was considered to be professional misconduct by SBC DC.

When appellant had alleged that Vasanthi is running brothel, then there appears no reasonable cause behind his visit to her house later on on 03/04/1995 and proceedings were conducted against her under SITA and this was printed in newspaper report as sex scandal run by her.

Hence, as per SBC DC, appellant’s conduct of making false allegations is not proper and later on his act of visit to her house did not suit as an advocate’s conduct and hence it was held SBC DC that he had misused his post as a public prosecutor and suspended him from his post for 6 months.

Against the above mentioned decision of SBC DC, appellant filed an appeal to BCI DC.

Decision and findings of BCI DC (Bar Council of India- Disciplinary committee)

  1. As regards charge of house trespass levied u/s 448 of IPC, 1860 on appellant, appellant stated as regards his visit to her house on 03/04/1995 that she wished to take that new flat (where he visited) on rent and hence to make a survey as regards whether it was proper flat or not, she phone called him and called him at that flat. As regards this explanation BCI DC noted that when the appellant had levied such serious false allegations on her on 06/03/1995 that she runs a brothel then it is quite against human behaviour of any person that such lady would call him at her home for such purpose of survey and hence this explanation is unacceptable and can’t be believed and further it should be noted that after the incident Dt. 06/03/1995 their relations had worsened so much that no person of reasonable prudence would visit her home and that too during night time. After making and noting above observation BCI DC held that on 06/03/1995 i.e. date of incident of house trespass or visit to her house and drinking of wine by the appellant and he being on the post of public prosecutor has no connection and hence there is no misuse of the post of public prosecutor because even common man can do this, hence BCI DC cancelled the punishment given by Hyderabad SBC DC.
  2. As regards this explanation BCI DC noted that when the appellant had levied such serious false allegations on her on 06/03/1995 that she runs a brothel then it is quite against human behaviour of any person that such lady would call him at her home for such purpose of survey and hence this explanation is unacceptable and can’t be believed and further it should be noted that after the incident Dt. 06/03/1995 their relations had worsened so much that no person of reasonable prudence would visit her home and that too during night time. After making and noting above observation BCI DC held that on 06/03/1995 i.e. date of incident of house trespass or visit to her house and drinking of wine by the appellant and he being on the post of public prosecutor has no connection and hence there is no misuse of the post of public prosecutor because even common man can do this, hence BCI DC cancelled the punishment given by Hyderabad SBC DC.

Judgment

SBC DC’s 6 months suspension order of appellant was set aside.