' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL (CHAIRMAN).---On 13th of November, 1983 by a Confidential letter No,2898/J, the then Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar had sent the present complaint to the Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar, that the respondent appeared as a counsel in a case F.I.R. No,393 titled State v. Karimullah Khan, under section 302/34, P.P.C. And got bail order for the accused on 21-6-1982 from the then Magistrate Mr. Israr Ahmed Khan, who had by then been transferred to Swabi and had relinquished the charge of his post on 16-6-1982; that on the basis of the said bail order the respondent-counsel got Karimullah accused released from the Central Jail, Peshawar allegedly with the help of his brother Masood Khan, who was then Assistant Supdt: Central Jail, Peshawar; that allegedly with the collusion of other officials the respondent counsel got the accused released from jail through illegal and fraudulent means. It was prayed by the complainant that action under the Bar Council Act be taken against the respondent.
2. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council sent the complaint to this Tribunal for trial. The respondent was summoned to answer the charges levelled against him, who appeared before the Tribunal and submitted his reply denying all the allegations and pleaded innocence.
3. Evidence of the parties pro and contra was recorded. Two witnesses, namely, Abdus Sattar, a representative of the Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar and Mujeebur Rehman, Assistant Superintendent Central Jail, Peshawar, were produced by the complainant's (State) counsel. Abdus Sattar (P.W.1) stated in his statement that in the year 1982 Muhammad Israr Khan E.A.C. Was posted at Peshawar and he was transferred to Swabi on 16-6-1982 (F.N). One Karimullah accused in a case under section 302 P.P.C. Submitted his bail application through the respondent counsel on 21-6- 1982 before Muhammad Israr Khan, E.A.C. Who in collusion with the then P.S.I. Muhammad Ismail and the respondent counsel passed bail order and also attested the bail bonds, on the strength of which order the accused was got released from the Jail, with the help of Muhammad Masood, the then Assistant Supdt: Jail, brother of the respondent. In his cross-examination the witnesses stated that he did not know whether the original bail order or the bail bonds attested by Muhammad Israr Khan, E.A.C. Were sent alongwith the complaint or not.
4. Mujeebur Rehman (P.W.2) stated that at S. No,12069 of the Register maintained for the under trial prisoners, there was an entry of Karimullah son of Hafizullah of Landi Arbab, Peshawar, as under trial prisoner in Central Jail Peshawar, in a case under section 307/34 P.P.C. Which section of law was subsequently altered to 302/34 P.P.C. According to the witness the accused was released on bail in response to bail order dated 21-6-1982, passed by Muhammad Israr Khan, E.A.C. Peshawar. In his cross-examination the witness stated that release order of the Court is usually received in the Central Jail through the Court Messenger by the concerned Clerk and no release order is entertained if it is brought by a private individual.
5. Mr. Tahir Hussain Lughmani, Advocate for the complainant and Shahzada Shahpur Jan, Advocate for the respondent were heard.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant placed reliance on the testimony of the two witnesses and submitted that the involvement of the respondent is proved from the material on record. He submitted that the record reveals that the release order of accused Karimullah was signed by Mr. Muhammad Israr, EA.C. Peshawar on 21-6-1982 when he had already relinquished his charge on 16- 6-1982. He further contended that the respondent advocate did not deny the fact that the Assistant Supdt: of the Jail was his brother, who had signed the entries of Register showing the release of prisoner from the Jail.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent advocate contended that since the other persons involved in the case i,e, M/S Israr Khan, EA.C. Masood Astt: Supdt: Jail and Muhammad Ismail P.S.I., have been exonerated of the charges levelled against them, by the Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P, therefore, the rule of consistency demands that the respondent advocate be also exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the record. The complainant i,e, the Deputy Commissioner had no to choose the respondent for these allegations of misconduct. An Advocate enjoys an exalted position and is expected to conduct himself in accordance with professional ethics. There is evidence on the record that the respondent had been instrumental in getting Karimullah accused released on bail on the basis of an illegal bail order. Keeping in view A the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the respondent guilty of misconduct. However, in view of the delay which has occurred in the disposal of this case, we would take lenient view and reprimand the respondent-advocate to be careful in future and to observe the nobility of the profession in future.