B.C.I. TR. CASE NO. 8/1987 DATED 23. 4.

2000

SMT. SIYA BAI - Complainant

Vs.
SITARAM SINGH - Respondent

Present: The Disciplinary Committee Of The Bar Council Of India

Shri. T.P. Singh, Chairman
Shri Adish. C. Aggarwala, Member
Shri S.L. Gupta, Member

FACTS

In this case, the complaint was filed before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Conceal of Madhya Pradesh by the complainant Smt. Siya Bai against the
Respondent-advocate, Shri Sita Ram Singh for his professional misconduct alleging
that the Respondent-advocate was engaged for filing money suits against 13 persons
and after passing the decrees in execution proceedings, the decretal amount was
deposited which was withdrawn from C.C.D. by the Respondent- advocate but the
same was not paid to the complainant nor the accounts were furnished. It was also
alleged that the Respondent- advocate has concealed the real facts and avoided to
give any information to the complainant on some pretext or the other. On coming to
know that the Respondent-advocate had withdrawn the amounts from the C.C.D., an
application was filed before the Distt. Judge, Jabalpur to refrain the Respondent-
advocate from withdrawing the amount from the C.C.D. It was further alleged that
the respondent- advocate had not paid the full court fee in Civil Suit against one
Dhani Ram and deficit amount of court fee of Rs. 75/- was paid. The Complainant
further called upon the Respondent-advocate to refund the amounts of court fee in
Dhani Ram's case.

The complainant has deposed that she does not have the definite figure of the amount
withdrawn by the respondent-advocate. It may be between Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 3000/-
or so. The fact remains that the respondent-advocate has withdrawn the amount and
2
has not accounted for that to the complainant. She has stated that she is an illiterate
lady and she has paid all the amount of expenses to the respondent-advocate towards
his fees and other expenses. She has submitted her statement of accounts which was
paid to the respondent-advocate on account of expenses and fees which have been
paid by her husband.

In various cases for which amounts were paid in the court have been withdrawn by
the respondent-advocate. When they wanted to collect the money from the
respondent-advocate, he replied that it would require more expenditure of money if
the amount is withdrawn in instalments, it would be better that the more amount is
withdrawn which would require lesser expenditure. Later on, he came to know that
the Amount has been withdrawn by the Respondent-advocate.

The Respondent-advocate has replied that the amounts have not been withdrawn by
him from the C.C.D. The Respondent-advocate in his reply has contended that the
contents are sympathetically denied due to the reasons that sometimes the applicant
has paid the court fee of the cases and expenses incurred during the pendency of the
cases, sometimes it was paid from the non-applicant's pocket on her request with
assurance to be adjusted from the decretal amount deposited in C.C.D. It has been
alleged by the Respondent advocate that whenever the amount was withdrawn from
the C.C.D., it was in the presence of the applicant and has been adjusted as per record
towards the amount recoverable by the non-applicant from the applicant.
He has further contended that the amount as desired by the applicant has been taken
away in the presence of her husband and others from the office of the Respondent-
advocate.

3
ISSUES

The following issues were framed by the Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh:-

1. Whether the amounts withdrawn by the Respondent-advocate from the C.C.D.

payable to the complainant have been adjusted towards court fees and to the other
expenses with the consent of the complainant?
2. Whether the Respondent-advocate has paid the amounts withdrawn by him from
C.C.D. to the complainant?
3. Whether the respondent has furnished the accounts as required in respect of the
above withdrawal to the complainant?
4. Whether Respondent-advocate has committed any professional or other
misconduct?
5. Whether the complaint is false and mischievous ?
6. Relief and costs?

4
JUDGEMNET

It has been proved from the submission of the respondent-advocate made in the
written statement filed by him in which he has clearly mentioned that he had
withdrawn the money from the C.C.D. advocate might have withdrawn the money
from the C.C.D. and had denied falsely and he has illegally retained the money on the
ground of adjustment towards the so-called amount recoverable from the
complainant. Issue No. 1 is clearly proved against the respondent-advocate. It was
for him to have stated as to how much amount he has withdrawn and has adjusted
towards his fees.

He has failed to furnish any account of the adjustments and what was due from the
complainant. Thus we are of the opinion that the plea of adjustment raised by the
respondent- advocate is not at all proved and he is found guilty of professional
misconduct for illegally retaining the amount on withdrawal. He has clearly
mentioned that whenever the amount is withdrawn, he has adjusted the same towards
the amount due against the complainant but details of the accounts he had failed to
furnish. He has further failed to furnish the account orally or in writing as to how
much amount he has paid and when it was paid to the complainant. Thus we find that
whatever amount has been. withdrawn by the respondent-advocate has not been paid
to the complainant and he has further failed to specify how much amount was due to
be paid to him by the complainant.

He is found guilty of professional misconduct as an advocate is required to maintain

accounts in which the respondent-advocate has failed. He has also illegally retained
the amount withdrawn by him on the plea of adjustment and also that of

With respect to whether the complaint is false and mischievous. The complaint is
found to be proved. On the contrary the stand taken by the respondent-advocate is
totally false and amounts to his unbecoming as a lawyer.

Under the circumstances, the amount of Rs. 2,000/- should be refunded by the
respondent-advocate along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing of
the complaint ie., from 11.7.1985 and cost of Rs. 5,000/- should also be paid by the
5
respondent-advocate to the complainant. The amount of interest should be paid and
calculated @ 10% per annum from 11.7.1985 till date of actual payment.

The payment be made within a period of 2 months to the complainant by the

respondent from the date of receipt of this order. The committee members ordered
for the suspension of the respondent- advocate for a period of one year. In case the
amount of Rs. 2,000/- alongwith interest and the cost of Rs. 5,000/- as ordered by us
to be paid by the respondent-advocate to the complainant, is not paid by the
respondent-advocate within a period of 2 months from the receipt of this order, he
shall have to undergo suspension for an additional period of six months. During the
period of suspension, the respondent- advocate shall not be entitled to practise in any
court in India.