' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER).--- On 1-7-1997, Mst. Hassan Zari daughter of Hussain Shah complainant filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, alleging therein that the respondent Said Farosh, Advocate son of Ali Yar Khan is practising at District Courts Dugger Buner and he forged a factitious and collusive special power of attorney on behalf of Said Quraish and on the basis of the same filed a civil suit against Khan Farosh son of the complainant in the Court of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Dugger District Buner.
2. It is further alleged that in order to verify the truth, correctness or otherwise of the special power of attorney, Said Quraish was summoned by the Court and the Court kept the said plaintiff under constant observation and after recording his statement, who denied the execution of the special power of attorney, the Court dismissed the suit on 9-9-1996 with remarks that the respondent was acting and pursuing the said civil suit to the detriment of the complainant and her son and, thus, had constantly agonizing them by taking undue advantage of his position as an Advocate, thus, it was prayed that the respondent's conduct was unbecoming of a Counsel, which is in violation of all norms and professional ethics and disciplinary action under the provisions of Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, .1973 was prayed for.
3. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar, initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted his written statement on 25-8-1997, wherein, the allegations contained in the complaint were denied. It was averred, that the suit was instituted by Said Quraish plaintiff through his counsel and Special Attorney Mr. Rajab Khan of Dugger District Buner. It was, however, admitted that the respondent/Advocate filed a special power of attorney Annexure "E" in Court on 29-2-1996 after the lapse of one and a half year of the institution of the suit. Regarding the adverse remarks of the learned Civil Judge, Dugger District Buner it was submitted that the learned counsel has passed such remarks, without consulting the record and the same were unwarranted.
4. Before the Committee, on 28-3-1998, the respondent was absent, so the Disciplinary Committee after considering the data available on the record referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication.
5. On receipt of the file, notices were issued to the parties and on appearance, the respondent submitted an application on 20-6-1998 praying for setting aside ex parte proceedings which was accepted on 25-7-1998 on payment of costs of Rs,2 ,500 and the case was sent back to the Disciplinary Committee for recording evidence of the parties. Unfortunately on receipt of the file by the Disciplinary Committee, as is evident from the detailed order sheet, dated 22-8-1998, the respondent and his counsel did not allow, the learned members to record evidence which fact was communicated to the Tribunal in writing and the file was again sent to this Tribunal. In view of the exigency of the situation, show-cause notice was issued to the respondent and his counsel on 19- 9-1998, as to why they should not be prosecuted under section 186 read with section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code and on receipt of the reply the counsel Mr. Shamoon Ahmad Bajwa was warned to be careful in future. However, a fine of Rs,5,000 was imposed on the respondent and the case was sent back to the Disciplinary Committee for recording of evidence. The Disciplinary Committee after recording of evidence submitted the case back to this Tribunal for decision.
6. During the arguments in the case before this Tribunal, the Counsel for the respondent raised some preliminary objections, that the complainant Mst. Hassan Zari is not an aggrieved person and, thus, the complaint submitted by her to the Bar Council is not maintainable and that the respondent has been enrolled by Sindh Bar Council, so this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It was lastly contended that the allegation of the alleged misconduct is not directly related to the professional duties of the respondent as an Advocate having no nexus with his position as such and, thus, the alleged misconduct is not amenable to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Law Officer for the Government of N.-W.F.P., relied upon the evidence recorded in this case and placed reliance on the document of power of attorney "Annexure E" the execution and filing of which has been admitted by the respondent and ' through which the case was pursuaded by the respondent and the ' complainant's son was unnecessarily dragged into litigation. It was submitted, that as the conduct of the respondent was unbecoming of a counsel, thus, he is guilty of professional misconduct.
8. Elaborating his view point learned counsel for the complainant Mr. Ghulam Ali, Advocate, submitted that according to the admitted facts brought on the record Said Farosh, respondent, is the brother of Said Quraish and the complainant Hassan Zari was the wife of Said Quraish and real sister-in-law of the respondent. Due to strained relation Said Quraish divorced the complainant.
Out of the wed-lock a son namely Khan Farosh was born and his grandfather Ali Yar Khan had gifted some landed property and a house in the name of the son of the complainant, in order to give and provide protection and source of maintenance to the child, the complainant being a young divorced lady, contracted second marriage with one Abdul Majeed which infuriated the respondent and this further aggravated the situation and the respondent once attempted effectively at the life of the complainant by firing at her and regarding this occurrence F.I.R. No,67 was lodged on 7-8-1981 in Police Station Totalia District Buner. The respondent was throughout trying to grab-this property and that is why, taking undue advantage from his position as an Advocate he got fabricated the documents, filed a civil suit and then used to prolong the agony of the complainant's son, in order to perpetuate his illegal possession over the property. The complainant being the mother of Khan Farosh and his natural guardian used to pursue this case and whenever she travelled from Peshawar to attend the case at Duggar, District Buner, the case was adjourned on one pretext or the other by the respondent.
9. It was further submitted, that the greed for grabing the property was such that the respondent per force, threw all the household articles of the complainant from her house and in this respect F.I.R. No,164, dated 2-11-1997 was registered against the respondent. It was lastly contended by the Counsel for the complainant that during the proceedings in this case, when the arguments were concluded before this Tribunal and the judgment was reserved for 28-8-1999, the complainant had gone to Dugger District Buner to attend her cases and on her return from Dugger to Peshawar on 16-8-1999 while travelling in a flying coach she was murdered and in this respect F.I.R. No,453, dated 16-8-1999 was registered in Police Station Rustam District Mardan. In this occurrence, the driver of the flying coach bearing No,N.-W.F.P.-E-1614, Peshawar was also injured and he lodged the F.I.R., against the unknown assailants but subsequently Mir Sameel Khan brother of the complainant and Khan Farosh son of the complainant had charged the respondent in their statements recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. So, the series of attempts at the life and property of the complainant and the final one to do away with her life in order to end the tether, adversely tells upon the credentials of the respondent disentitling him to remain in the noble profession of practising law.
10. The question of jurisdiction in this case is very pertinent. Under section 2(A) of the Legal Practitioner and Bar Council Act, 1973, Advocate means an Advocate who is entered in any roll under the provisions of this Act. So, the respondent is entered as an Advocate under the provisions of the Act (ibid), is a member of District Bar Association Dugger District Buner and is practising law within the territorial jurisdiction of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar, and as4'such N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Tribunal has got absolute jurisdiction in this matter. Furthermore, Mst. "Hassan Zari complainant is the mother of Khan Farosh and his natural guardian and was well within her right to file the instant complaint, because under section 41(2) any person or Court can file a complaint that an Advocate has been guilty of professional or other misconduct. Under the above provision of law the professional misconduct or other misconduct can be looked into by the N.-W.F.P., Bar Council Tribunal. Furthermore, the misconduct need not be necessarily between the counsel and client or directly touching the performance of professional duties of an Advocate. It was held in a case 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 an Advocate, while he is in legal profession, that is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Bar Council and legal action can be initiated against the Advocate.
11. In this case, there is evidence on the record that the respondent was directly instrumental in preparing the power of attorney and filing the suit. Admittedly the respondent was having a joint Chamber with Ghulam Mustafa, Advocate Dugger District Buner and was working with him as Assistant, as admitted by Abdul Ghafoor D.W. Through whom the suit was filed and then the respondent colluded in preparing a power of attorney and admitted that on the basis of the same he was pursuing the case, which was ultimately disowned by the plaintiff Said Quraish by recording his statement on oath and the learned Civil Judge while dismissing the Suit No,224/1 decided on 9- 9-1996 burdoned the respondent with costs. Although in Review Application No,13/6 decided on 22- 12-1997 the learned Civil Judge while expunging the remarks recorded the order that "the petitioner Said Farosh has satisfied the Court, that he has reformed himself" so the learned Court passed the order expunging the remarks but the rest of the order with respect to the falsity of suit and fabrication of the special power of Attorney was maintained. Perusal of the application and appeal filed by the respondent would show that in no way the order of the learned Civil Judge was challenged by him except to the extent of remarks recorded by the learned Civil Judge Dugger at District Buner.
12. The oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record would show, that the respondent was from the outset after the property, even at the cost of the life of his real sister-in-law i,e,, the complainant, as is evident from the series of attempts at her life. Both the Bench and Bar are the custodians of the rights of the parries and citizens of the country as Allah Almighty, ordains "administer justice, because it is near to piety" and in this way they are performing divine job and any conduct violative of the above command of Allah Almighty, will be stingingly abominable and no law, norms or ethics under any system of administration of justice will allow such acts to perpetuate in the society, in a situation in which even the life of an innocent lady cannot be spared to satiate the greed for the worldly gains.
13. It is the duty of every Advocate to uphold at all time the dignity of the legal profession as well as his own dignity as a member of the fraternity, because Courts of law always give the Advocates extreme respect and repose in them great trust and confidence and any betrayal of such trust not only hamper the legal profession but also the administration of justice and the Bar Councils have to curb these evils, in order to save the legal profession as well as the administration of justice from being eroded.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the respondent guilty of gross professional misconduct and order his immediate removal from the profession with costs of rupees fifty thousands (Rs,50,000) payable to the legal representatives of the deceased complainant Mst. Hassan Zari.
Complaint accepted.