discuss the case of rathnam
Answers
Answer:
P.J. Ratnam vs D. Kanikaram And Others on 10 April, 1963
Equivalent citations: 1964 AIR 244, 1964 SCR (3) 1
Author: N R Ayyangar
Bench: Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala
PETITIONER:
P.J. RATNAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
D. KANIKARAM AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
10/04/1963
BENCH:
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
BENCH:
AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA
SINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)
SHAH, J.C.
CITATION:
1964 AIR 244 1964 SCR (3) 1
CITATOR INFO :
R 1985 SC 28 (30)
ACT:
Professional misconduct--Complaint--Enquiry--Advocate
misappropriating client's money--If guilty of
professional misconduct--Proceeding in respect of
professional misconduct and proceeding in a criminal Court-
Object of-Differentiation-Punishment-Legal practitioners
Act, 1879 (18 of 1879), ss. 12, 13--Indian Bar Councils
Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), s. 10 (2).
HEADNOTE:
The respondents and one other Kagga Veeraiah, were
plaintiffs in a suit for possession of certain lands and
the appellant was their Advocate. Tim suit was dismissed
and an appeal was preferred therefrom to the Subordinate
Judge. Pending the disposal of the appeal, the court
directed the sale proceeds of the standing crops on the suit
land to be deposited into court, and a sum of Rs. 1,600/-
was so deposited. The plaintiff's appeal was allowed and
the defendants preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
Pending disposal of the second appeal, plaintiff's
application for withdrawing the amount was allowed by the
court on furnishing security of immovable property. A
cheque petition was filed which was allowed and thereafter a
cheque for Rs. 1,452/4/- was issued in favour of the
appellant. The appellant an Advocate admitted that he
had received and. had cashed the cheque on behalf of his
clients who were entitled to be paid this sum. The second
appeal was allowed by the High Court and the plaintiff's
suit was dismissed, as a result of which the plaintiffs had
to refund the sum of the defendants in the suit. The
plaintiffs made a written demand on the appellant for the
proceeds of the cheque that had been cashed by him and not
paid over to them. The appellant in reply claimed to have
paid over the sum to them on their passing a receipt which
happened to be in the bundle. of case-papers returned to
2
them. The respondents filed a complaint under as. 12 and
13 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The explanation of the
Advocate was called for and the District Judge was directed
to hold an enquiry and forward his report to the High Court.
His report was that the appellant's case was not
unbelievable and he was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The matter was heard by a Bench of three Judges of the High
Court, who held him guilty of professional misconduct and
suspended him for five years from practice. In this
Court the appellant contended, (1) that the Bar Council
had not been consulted before the case was referred to the
learned District Judge for inquiry and report and this
vitiated the legality of the entire proceedings against the
appellant. (2) That the complaint filed by the respondents
on the basis of which action was taken against the appellant
was not shown to have been signed by them, nor properly
verified by them as required by the rules of the High Court.
(3) That as in substance the charge against the appellant
was misappropriation of moneys belonging to the clients,
the High Court should have left the complainants to their
remedy of prosecuting the appellant and should not have
proceeded to deal with him under s. 10 of the Bar Councils
Act. (4) That there was a procedural irregularity in the
mode in which the case against the appellant was conducted.
(5) That one of the plaintiffs--Kagga Veeraiah had himself
admitted in his evidence that he and others had received the
proceeds of the cheque which the appellant had cashed and
that in the face of this admission the High Court was
clearly wrong in finding that the appellant had failed to
pay over the money to his clients.
Held (1) that the fact that in the order of reference
of the proceedings under s. 10(2) of the Bar Councils Act,
to the District Judge, there is no explicit statement that
the Bar Council had previously been consulted, is not
decisive on the point. There would be a presumption of
regularity in respect of official and judicial acts and it
would be for. the party who challenges such regularity to
plead and prove his case. Since, this objection was not
raised in the High Court, even when the appellant applied
for a certificate, this Court will not entertain this
objection which rests wholly upon a question of fact.
(2) The complaint petition had been signed by the
respondents and properly verified and even otherwise since
the High Court was competent to initiate these proceedings
suo motu under s. 10(2) of the Act, the point raised is
wholly without substance.
Having regard to the gravity of the offence, there is no
justification for reducing the period of suspension. The
appeal therefore, must be dismissed.
please mark as brainliest
Explanation:
The case of rathnam
Explanation:
Prevention of Atrocities ,The 1989 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes is the law stated in Indian constitution.
This law was formed due to the protest led by Schedule class and tribes for preservation of their fundamental rights and also ill behaviours faced by tribals.
The case of Rantham reflects the atrocities done on people of lower strata. His hut was burnt and forced to leave village with his family and also badly assaulted and dominated by village head. Similar instance was taken to file the case and complaint under the act of prevention of atrocities to get justice.
Learn More
What are Prevention of atrocities act
brainly.in/question/2905610