' MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER).---On 4-1-1999 Irshad Khan complainant filed a complaint in the N.- W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar alleging therein that the complainant was involved in cross-cases under section 302, P.P.C. And section 324 of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance. That the complainant engaged two counsels namely Wilayat Shah and Fida Gul, Advocates to conduct his case in the Court of Mr. Riaz Khattak, the then Additional District and Sessions Judge Peshawar. Later on the complainant also engaged the respondent, who asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs, eighty thousand to be paid as bribe to the Presiding Officer of the Court namely Riaz Khattak, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Peshawar, for securing the acquittal of the complainant in the murder case, which the complainant paid to the respondent.
2. It is further alleged by the complainant that later on, he came to know, that the respondent Advocate has cheated the complainant and in fact, nothing has to be paid to the learned Judge, as alleged by the respondent. Further allegations are that, the respondent under the robes of advocacy/legal profession resorted to cheating and tourism and on demand the respondent repaid Rs, seventy thousands to the complainant and has not paid Rs,10,000 so far. That the conduct of the respondent is unbecoming of a counsel and he has committed professional misconduct and it was prayed, that legal action for professional misconduct be taken against the respondent under the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar initiated proceedings against the respondent for professional misconduct and the respondent was summoned for 6-3-1999 on which date the respondent submitted his written statement in which the allegations contained in the complaint were denied in toto, however, it was admitted that the complainant had engaged the respondent as Council for bail only and not for the trial of the case, it is averred in the written statement that the fee of Rs,10,000 was fixed with the complainant for bail application only and out of which Rs, six thousand has been paid by the complainant while Rs, four thousand is still outstanding against the complainant. The learned Members of the Disciplinary Committee recorded the evidence of the complainant and in the meantime the respondent absented himself and the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council vide its reference dated 22-5-1999, referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication.
4. Before us, on 27-8-1999, it was submitted that the matter had been referred to this Tribunal persuant to ex parte proceedings initiated by the Disciplinary Committee against the respondent for setting aside of the same the respondent had submitted an application but no order has been passed on that application dated 1-6-1999.
5. On 28-7-1999, the application of the respondent was accepted and the ex parte proceedings were set aside by us on payment of costs of Rs,3,000 as the complainant had no objection to the acceptance of the application and the parties were directed to appear before the Disciplinary Committee for recording of the evidence of the respondent, the case was again sent to this Tribunal vide order dated 7-8-1999 for final decision, after recording the statement of the respondent.
6. Before us, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that as the complainant has submitted an application to the Disciplinary Committee for the withdrawal of the complaint and as the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are applicable to the proceedings before this Tribunal, so the complaint be dismissed as withdrawn under the provisions of Order 23, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and the respondent be exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
7. Shah Zada Shah Pur Jan, Advocate learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that in case the balance of Rs, ten thousand outstanding against the respondent is paid to the complainant, then he has no objection to the withdrawal of the complaint. When asked whether the complaint filed by the client against the respondent was false, he submitted that the complaint was based on facts but as the elders of the locality has settled the matter amicably, so he has no objection to the withdrawal of the complaint.
8. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the Government of N.-W.F.P. Contended that the proceedings for misconduct under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and rules framed thereunder or under the Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules are not compoundable, and thus, the same cannot be compromised and even the comprise in such-like cases will amount to admission of the charges levelled against the respondent and no subsequent compromise or withdrawal can wash away the stigma of professional misconduct.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties on the face of the record the misconduct of the respondent is not only discernable but also proved. The complainant and his witnesses have recorded their statements on oath before the Disciplinary Committee, where it was categorically stated that the respondent had taken the money for onward passing the same to the Presiding Officer of the Court. The act .Of the respondent was not only to squeez out money from the complainant but also to involve a very responsible Officer of the subordinate Judiciary and had tried to shatter the confidence of the general public/litigants which they always repose in Advocates and Courts of justice. This practice has its in-roads into the legal profession wherein money is taken from the litigants and cases are accepted on undertakings and in case of failure, the ill-gotten money is returned to the litigants which should not be allowed to perpetuate in the society.
10. The application of the provisions of Civil Procedure Code to the proceedings before the Tribunal is very limited in securing the attendance of the witnesses and the rigours of the same are not applicable. The Tribunal can decide the matter on oral evidence and through affidavits. There is evidence on the record that the respondent obtained a huge amount from the complainant, with undertaking to pay the same to the Presiding Officer of a Court for the acquittal of the complainant, which conduct prima facie is violative of all cannons of professional ethics and morality.
11. The question of withdrawal of the case of professional misconduct came under consideration before the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal in a case Muhammad Amin v. M. Asghar Khokhar, Advocate reported in 1992 CLC page 1596 wherein, His Lordship Mr. Justice Irshad Hasan Khan, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal as he then was, held that even if the parties enter into a compromise and the respondent accused undertake to return the money, will not wash away the stigma of misconduct committed by him.
12. Under the provisions of Rules 134 and 172 of the Pakistan Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1973 and Rules framed thereunder an Advocate is duty bound to maintain the dignity and high standing of the legal profession and also his own dignity as a Member of the Legal fraternity, both within and outside the Court, and should refrain to indulge in deception and betroyal of the trust of the public-at-large. The Courts repose great trust and confidence in Advocates and any violation of the same will definitely amount to professional misconduct under Rule 175-A of the rules ibid.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct and order his suspension from practice .For a period of two years commencing from 18-12-1999 with costs of Rs, twenty thousand payable by the respondent to the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council under section 41 read with section 44 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973.