Madras High Court: In a writ petition filed, praying for directing the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, and the Bar Council of India to take necessary action against an advocate, the division bench of S.M. Subramaniam* and V. Sivagnanam, JJ. passed the following directions:
-
The police were directed to proceed with the criminal case registered against the advocate.
-
The Bar Council of India was directed to initiate all necessary and appropriate actions against the advocate under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1967 and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 as the case may be.
-
The police were directed to evict the advocate from the premises of the petitioner and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner within a period of 48 hours from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Background:
The petitioner is the owner of a building. He entered into an agreement with the advocate, and it was alleged that the advocate not only committed default in payment of rent but also occupied other portions of the building by creating forged lease agreements. After expiry of the original lease period, the advocate continues in forcible occupation. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the Bar Council of India, before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and in Police Station. Since no action has been taken by the authorities the present writ petition has been instituted.
Analysis and Decision:
To find out the genuineness of the complaint filed by the petitioner, earlier the Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police (‘ACP’) to conduct an inquiry. The Court noted that the ACP conducted an inquiry and initially made a submission through Additional Public Prosecutor that the advocate is in possession of rental agreements and the genuinity of the same is to be verified.
After perusing the report on the examination of the property documents by Forensic Sciences Department, the Court noted that all the rental agreements produced by the advocate before the Court are bogus and fabricated.
The Court took note of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which stipulates punishment of Advocates for misconduct. The Court clarified that though the relationship between the petitioner and the advocate was of landlord and tenant, the advocate by misusing his position as a lawyer created forged rental agreement and occupied five portions of the building owned by the petitioner.
Th Court remarked that “Lawyer enjoys a status in the society. They are expected to maintain good conduct. A Lawyer involved in creation of forged rental agreement is liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.”
The Court said that in the present case, the actions of the advocate did not stop with the tenant and landlord relationship but it exceeded by creating forged rental agreement by misusing his position as a lawyer and further, a criminal case has also been registered against him under Section 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Penal code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Therefore, actions at the end of the Bar Council are just and necessary.
[B.L. Madhavan v. Secretary, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 4627, decided on 27-08-2024]
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
