' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER).---On 18-9-1999 Mst. Tajbaro w/o Fazal Din resident of Topi Tehsil and District Swabi filed a complaint in the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council against Muhammad Ashraf Jadoon, Advocate, Swabi respondent, alleging therein, that respondent who is a practicing lawyer in District Courts, Swabi that the son of the complainant Abdul Mastan was charged in a murder case and in this case negotiations for compromise was going on with the complainant party. The complainant and Legal Representatives of the deceased was claiming the Deyat money and for this the complainant. Mst. Tajbaro sold her only house in favour of one Jah Malik for a sale consideration of Rs, 62,500.
2. That the respondent Advocate in Swabi Court premises prevailed upon the complainant and asked her that the sale consideration of Rs, 62,500 is a huge amount and-the complainant being an aged lady and is all alone, is exposed to hazzards and expressed his apprehensions that the money will be snatched away- from the complainant by someone and asked the complainant to keep this money as trust with the respondent. The Advocate was entrusted the money in presence of witnesses which is still lying with the respondent Advocate.
3. That further allegations in the complaint are that the respondent was repeatedly requested to return the money but on one pretext or the other the respondent is avoiding to repay the same and is going to betray the trust so reposed in the respondent. So, it was prayed that, disciplinary action be initiated against the respondent as he has committed a professional misconduct under the Legal Practitioners Act, 1973.
4. The Disciplinary Committee of N.-W.F.P. Bar Council initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted a written statement on -13-11-1999 in which the allegations contained in the complaint were hotly contested. It was alleged that the complaint is the outcome of personal malice and grudges, however, it was admitted in written statement that the respondent Advocate remained as a counsel for the complainant and was defending her son in the murder case. In short it was averred that the money which the respondent had received was his fee for professional duties and was not returnable to the complainant.
5. That the Disciplinary Committee of .I.-W.F.P. Bar Council after receipt of the written statement of the respondent fixed the case for the evidence of the complainant for 12-2-2000, on which- date the respondent absented himself. The Disciplinary Committee recorded the evidence of the complainant and considering the material on the record, referred the matter to this Tribunal vide order, dated 1'2-2-2000, for final adjudication.
6. Notices were issued to the parties and the parties appeared before this Tribunal on 4-3-2000.
The respondent appeared and voluntarily recorded the following statement:--- ' Statement of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Jadoon, Advocate/respondent on oath: "I was paid. Rs,56,000 in toto by Mst. Tajbaro complainant, out of which I adjusted Rs, 16,000 for conducting Sessions Trial of Abdul Mastan son of the complainant, who was tried under section 302, P.P.C. In the Court of ,Additional Sessions Judge, Swabi, while I also adjusted Rs .30;000 out of the abovementioned amount for filing an appeal against the conviction of Abdul Mastan in Peshawar High Court, Peshawar. I returned Rs,10,000 to Mst. Muslim Taj, daughter of the complainant. Nothing is outstanding against me. After commission of the offence Abdul Mastan was absconder for some time and I used to meet him during his ascendance period in village Pawoka and after the failure of the efforts made for compromise, Abdul Mastan was handed over to police of Police Station Topi and he was then arrested accordingly. I have incurred expenses of Abdul Mastan during the period of his ascendance and also during the period when he was in the lock-up. The appeal filed by me on behalf of Abdul Mastan in the High Court against his conviction is still pending. In order to meet all these expenses the complainant has sold her house for an amount of Rs,62,500 to one Khan Malik."
7. The statements of Jan Malik and Umar Zada were recorded by the Disciplinary Committee while the complainant appeared and has recorded her statement on oath.
8. The complainant mainly relied on the statements of the witnesses recorded by the Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council and the statement of the respondent, dated 4-3-2000 and contended that the respondent under the Robes of an Advocate, had taken a huge amount from the complainant, which was the sale' consideration of her house sold to Jan Malik, P.W. 1 and this amount of Rs,62,500 was paid to the respondent in presence of P.W.2 Umar Zada.
9. Respondent on the other hand contended that he actually received Rs,56,500 from the complainant which was the professional fee as the respondent was a counsel for the complainant's son in a murder case was conducting the Sessions trial in the Court of Sessions Judge, Swabi and on conviction of the complainant's son to life imprisonment had filed a criminal appeal in the High Court and thus, Rs, 16,000 and Rs, Thirty thousand, had been charged for the cases as his professional fee and the remaining Rs, Ten thousand was paid to the daughter of the complainant Mst. Taj Bibi. It was further submitted that when the complainant's son was a proclaimed offender in murder case and while living as absconder in village Powaka Peshawar and during his detention in jail the respondent used to provide and meet his expenses and for all this the complainant had sold her dwelling house for a sale consideration of Rs, 62,500.
10. The narration of the above facts and submissions of the parties would show that the respondent admits the sale of the house by the complainant and receipt of the money but with a different version as given in his statement dated 4-3-2000. The evidence on the record has clearly established that the complainant sold the house and sale consideration was kept with the respondent as sacred trust which later on the respondent refused to pay and the version of the complainant and her witnesses is fully corroborated by the statement of - the respondent recorded before this Tribunal on oath.
11. There is evidence on record that the respondent did receive a huge amount from the complainant which the sale proceeds of her only house and the money was kept with the respondent as sacred trust and on demand the respondent refused to repay the same and tried to justify the same as his fee and expenses of the complainant's son when he was in ascension.
12. An Advocate enjoys a very high position in the society and he would conduct himself in such a way so as to give least suspicion to his client regarding the distrust and not to betray the trust reposed in him by his client. An Advocate is always expected to uphold the dignity of his profession and its high standard both within and outside the Court as provided by Rules 134 and 172 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1976 and any violation of these rules will amount to a professional misconduct as provided by rule 175-A of the Rules (ibid.)
' In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the accused guilty of professional misconduct, and order his suspension from the practice for period of three years commencing from 24-6-2000 and the respondent is further directed to refund the amount of Rs, 56,000 (fifty six thousand) to the complainant.