' MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).---On 24th May, 1997 Ali Rehman complainant filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P., Bar Council, Peshawar alleging therein that the respondent Sohail Hussan Qaisar, Advocate Peshawar, in July 1996, came to him and asked for renting out his flate No,1081 situated on Saddar Road Peshawar for the office of the respondent. The respondent agreed to execute an agreement on proper stamp paper but instead of the said agreement the respondent brought a printed form filled in the same and handed over the said rent deed to the complainant. As the respondent was attached to a noble profession of practising law and thus, the complainant, reposed trust in the respondent and the respondent assured the complainant that proper agreement will be executed on a stamp paper later on.
2. Further averments in the complaint are that the respondent occupied the premises and since the execution of the rent deed till today neither the rent was paid nor he vacated the said premises.
It is further alleged that on repeated requests, the respondent was neither vacating the said premises nor paying the rent to the complainant. Besides this the respondent fraudulently also entered a clause in the sale-deed with his own handwriting that in case of subletting the complainant shall have no objection. As the respondent under the robes of an advocate has cheated the complainant and betrayed the trust thus, it was prayed that legal action according to law be taken against the respondent.
3. That Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent in spite of repeated notices intentionally avoided service and hence was placed ex parte. The Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council recorded the statement of the complainant and the learned Members after going through the record of the case and data available on the file referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication on 27-12-1997.
4. On receipt of case file, notices were issued to the respondent the complaint used to attend and the respondent as usual was trying to resort to delaying tactics consequently a proclamation in the Newspaper was also issued which was duly published in the newspaper but in spites of the proclamation, the respondent was absent and thus, non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the respondent by this Tribunal, consequently on 8-5-1999 the respondent appeared before us and submitted a personal bond alongwith two sureties with undertaking that he will regularly attend this Tribunal and as such the -non-bailable warrant of arrest was recalled and the case was fixed for arguments on 5-6-1999.
5. That on 5-6-1999 a Tribunal meeting could not be held because of important official engagement of the learned Chairman of the Tribunal and the case came for hearing before us on 10-7-1999 on which date the respondent Advocate submitted a detailed reply to the application, as the respondent Advocate had been proceeded ex parte on 29-11-1997 by the Disciplinary Committe, thus, the ex parte proceedings against the respondent were set aside on payment of cost of Rs,5,000 payable by the respondent to the complainant and the learned Member of this Tribunal (Mr. Syed Rehman Khan) was empowered to record evidence of the parties but in the mean while the respondent approached the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council challenging the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The matter was referred to this Tribunal by his Lordship Mr. Justice Munawar Ahmed Mirza (late) the learned Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Bar Council vide order dated 17-7-1999, with the direction to determine the jurisdiction of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Tribunal in the present matter and to treat the same as a preliminary issue. The concluding portion of the judgment of his lordship is reproduced below:-- "Since determination of question regarding jurisdiction by way of preliminary issue has been agreed upon and shall be dealt with by Disciplinary Tribunal of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council as preliminary issue as conceded above. Thus in view of above situation and concession which is obviously in accordance with law the appeal is not pressed any further. Same, subject to above observation, is dismissed as not pressed."
6. Arguments of the learned Counsels for the parties on the question of jurisdiction were heard on 4-3-2000. Mr. Abdul Qadir Khattak learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the respondent under the robes of an Advocate approached the complainant and rented his premises for the office of the respondent, where he had to maintain his office for professional duties and during the subsistence of this jural relationship the complainant was cheated by the respondent by preparing a rent note which is the subject-matter of the present proceedings, thus it was contended that the conduct of the respondent had a direct nexus with the professional duties of the respondent and even otherwise under the provisons of section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973, this Tribunal can look into the professional misconduct as well as other misconduct of the respondent and the complainant had reposed trust in the respondent and any betrayal of trust will amount to professional misconduct in view of the Code of Conduct prescribed for the Advocate under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976.
7. The respondent, on the other hand contended that the act complained of was not the result of any professional duties because no jural relations of counsel and client existed between the parties and the allegations contained in the complaint will not amount to a professional mis-conduct and thus, would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Tribunal. In this respect the respondent referred to 1982 CLC 2341.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case. The legal provisions as embodied in the canons of professional conduct prescribed for the Advocates are contained in the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976. Under the provision of rule 134 it is the duty of every Advocate to upheld the dignity and high standing of the profession as well as his own dignity as a member of the legal profession, furthermore, under Rule 172 of the rules ibid an Advocate is supposed to uphold the dignity of the Profession and should not indulge in deception or betrayal of the trust of general public and any violation of these rules will definitely amounts to a misconduct as envisaged by Rule 175-A of the Rules (ibid):
9. The question that whether this Tribunal can look into only the professional misconduct of an Advocate has very clearly been provided by Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and under this provision of law the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Tribunal is empower to enquire into the professional misconduct as well as other misconduct committed by the respondent. The misconduct need not be the direct consequence of the professional duties of the respondent as an Advocate but if that is remotely connected with the profession or is done under the cover of the legal profession, the same will amounts to misconduct. As defined by Section 41 of the Act ibid. It was also held in the matter of Barrister/Advocate by the Lahore High Court reported in AIR 1934 Lahore page 251 (G) that if the misconduct is the remote result of the acts of the Advocate while he is practicing the legal profession that will be amenable to the jurisdiction of Bar Council Tribunal and legal action can be initiated against the Advocate. The ruling cited by the respondent titled Mushtaq Ahmed Farooq, Advocate Versus Muhammad Yousaf reported in NLR 1982 Criminal cases page 593 is distinguishable, in so far, in the cited case the respondent had purchased a Thormos from a shop which was the private and personal act of the respondent not connected with the professional duties. But in the present case the act of the respondent was connected with his professional duties as an Advocate, as he under the cover of legal profession approached the complainant with request to rent out his premises to the respondent for his office as an Advocate.
' In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we held that the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Tribunal has got the plenary jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter pending before us and thus the preliminary issue of jurisdiction of this Tribunal is answered in affirmative.