' MUHAMMAD ALAM (MEMBER)---On 21-7-1998 Wajid Ali complainant filed a complaint in the N.- W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar alleging there in that the complainant belongs to a respectable family and is a law abiding citizen of Pakistan. That about nine months prior to the filing of the complaint, his young son aged about eighteen years who is also a student of F.A. Namely Wahid Ali was arrested by the local Police of Police Stations Hayat Abad and Gul Bahar, Peshawar who had been falsely involved in some criminal cases and is behind the bars.
2. That the complainant approached the respondents Advocates for providing him legal assistance and release on bail of the complainant's son. The respondents demanded Rs,77,000 (Seventy seven thousands) from the complainant on the undertaking/guarantee that they will arrange for the bail of the complainant's son and in case of failure will return the money. In short it was alleged that the respondents struck the bargain with my-backguarantee to the complainant.
3. That in spite of the fact that nine months had elapsed, the respondents neither moved an application for the bail of the accused nor secured the bail as undertaken by them. On this, the complainant demanded the return of money, out of which Rs,8,000 was returned by the respondents and they refused to return the balance of Rs,69,000, and thus, the respondents had resorted to cheat the complainant under the robes of advocacy/legal profession and has thus, committed gross professional misconduct. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council Peshawar initiated proceedings for professional misconduct against the respondents on 25-7- 1998.
4. The respondents were summoned for 22-8-1998, with the direction to submit their written statements within one week, On the date fixed the respondents requested for adjournment and the learned members of the Disciplinary Committee adjourned the hearing to 26-9-1998 again with a direction to the respondents to submit their reply within a fortnight. Even on the adjourned date the reply could not be filed. However, the parties appeared before the Disciplinary Committee and the respondents on 26-9-1998 recorded their joint statement, that they have paid Rs,13,000 in three instalments to the complainant and the remaining amount will be paid on 6-10-1998. On this the learned members of the Committee vide their reference dated 26-9-1998, referred the case to this Tribunal for final adjudication as according to them the respondents by admitting their guilt had committed grave professional misconduct.
5. Before us the parties appeared and on 27-3-1999, the complainant recorded his statement which is reproduced below:-- "States that the respondents Zafar Khalil and Haji Gulzada Khan, Advocates have been threatening me that in case I do not compromise this case with them they will get me killed. Under their threat, coercion and duress I entered into compromise with them. They have paid me Rs,27,000 out of Rs,77000. Rs,50,000 are still outstanding against them. I demand that they should also return and pay me Rs,50,000."
' In view of the above statement of the complainant, the respondents were directed to execute bond in the sum of Rs, One lac to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar to the effect that the respondents will exert no pressure on the complainant and in case any harm is done to him the respondents will be responsible for the same and Mr. Syed Rehman Khan learned member was empowered to record evidence in this case. However, it seems that the complainant had been approached by the respondents and it was stated before the learned member that a compromise has been effected and the respondents have returned the balance amount to the complainant and to this effect, this Tribunal also recorded the statement of Haji Wajid Ali complainant on 28-7-1999 which in verbatim is reproduced below:-- "States that respondents Zafar Khalil and Haji Gulzada, Advocates had received Rs,77,000 from me as bribe to be given to the Presiding Officer of the Court for the grant of bail to my son namely Wahid Ali in case F.I.R. No, 546, dated 27-9-1997, Police Station Gul Bahar under section 17(3), Haraba. In other cases against my son the respondents were paid separately. Through the intervention of the elders of the locality the respondents have returned me Rs,77,000."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents mainly contended that the respondents have returned the entire amount of Rs,77,000 to the complainant and nothing is now outstanding against them. Thus, they be exonerated of the allegations levelled against them. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the Government of N.-W.F.P. Submitted, that the charge for misconduct is not compoundable and once the misconduct is committed under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 or other provisions of law like the (N.-W.F.P.
Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973), the same cannot be withdrawn and will be taken to its logical end.
7. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondent and learned A.A.-G. For the Government of N.-W.F.P. On the face of the record the misconduct of the respondents is not only discernable, but has also been admitted and in consequence of the same the extorted money has been returned. It is on the record that the respondents obtained a huge amount of Rs,77,000 from the complainant for passing on the same to the Presiding Officer of the Court with undertaking that they will get the complainant's son released on bail and in case of failure will return the money back to the complainant. The conduct of the respondent prima facie is unbecoming of a Counsel and the return of the money will not exonerate the respondents specially in the circumstances, that the respondents have nowhere rebutted the allegations levelled against them.
8. The question of withdrawal of the case of professional misconduct came for consideration before the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal in a case titled 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.
9. Under the provisions of rules 134 and 172 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976 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 detrayal of the trust of the publicat-large. The Courts repose great trust and confidence in Advocate and any violation of the same will definitely amount to professional misconduct under Rule 175-A of the rules ibid. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, we find the respondents guilty of professional misconduct and order their suspension from practice for a period of three years commencing from 18-12-1999 with costs of Rs,twenty five thousand payable by the respondents in equal share to the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council under section 41 read with section 44 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973.