Case Analysis |Hikmat Ali Khan vs Ishwar Prasad Arya

CITATION: AIR 1997 SC844

Case no: civil appeal no. 4249 of 1986 decided on January 28, 1997

DATE OF JUDGMENT:           28/01/1997

BENCH:

S.C. AGRAWAL, SUJATA V. MANOHAR

FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case, Ishwarprasad Arya was an advocate practising at Budaun, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, during the trial proceeding he assaulted his opponent, Mr Reddy Shyam, in the courtroom. After investigation and trial, he was punished under section 307 of IPC for a period of three years imprisonment. Before he could be arrested in a copy of a letter purporting to have been sent by L R Sing deputy secretary, Uttar Pradesh addressed to the district court. Badaun was received in the court of 3 additional districts. senior judge, Badaun who was responsible for executing the order of the court.

In the said letter it was stated that the governor has been pleased to suspect the conviction of Ishwar Prasad Arya under Article 161 of the Indian constitution with the immediate effect and until further order, he should remain free on receiving the copy of the said letter the proceeding of his arrest stayed. Thereafter it was found that the letter was fraudulent and therefore a warrant for the arrest was issued and he was arrested and sent to Baduan jail to undergo imprisonment.

A complainant was sent with all these facts to the chairman of the Bar Council, Uttar Pradesh. The committee barred him from practising as an advocate for a period of two years from the date of the service of the order on the appeal to the Bar Council of India the decision of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was held.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Whether the punishment given by the state bar council of Uttar Pradesh and the bar council of India was adequate or not?

ANALYSIS OF THE CASE:

The misconduct of the appellant is that he has assaulted or attacked his opponent, Mr Radha Shyam in the courtroom with a knife under section 24(a) of the advocate act 1961 a person who is convicted of an offence related to moral turpitude will be disqualified from being enrolled as an advocate so if a person who has allegedly enrolled in the Bar Council as an advocate has committed such an offence, he is debarred from the bar council and has committed misconduct.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:

The Hon'ble bench of the supreme court of India held:

1. The punishment given by the state bar council at the bar council of India is to be set aside
2. Appellant's name to be removed from the state bar council, Uttar Pradesh and the role of advocates from the act of gross misconduct.