' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN (MEMBER)--- On 26-8-2000 Mst. Surriya Begum wife of Rehmat Ullah Khan, resident of D.I. Khan filed a complaint against Muhammad Aslam, Advocate, D.I. Khan, alleging therein, that a suit for partition was filed by Ghulam Fatima against Allah Nawaz etc. On 14- 9-1995 in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, D.I. Khan which was decided on 4-7-1997 in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties to the effect that Allah Nawaz defendant will pay a sum of Rs,3,60,000 to each co-sharer in the disputed property. The share of Ghulam Fatima and Mussarat Bibi co-sharers was paid to them through Bank but the Shari share was not paid to the complainant rather Allah Nawaz defendant promised to pay the said share to the complainant and in this respect a pronote was executed by Allah Nawaz in favour of the complainant.
2. It is further alleged in the complaint that in the above-titled suit the respondent Advocate was the Special Attorney for the complainant. The respondent being .The sister's son of the complainant, was reposed trust on him by the complainant, by executing a power of attorney by the complainant in his favour. It is alleged that Allah Nawaz did not abide by his promise as contained in the pronote and this compelled the complainant to file a civil suit for the recovery of Rs,3,60,000 against Allah Nawaz.
3. The respondent/Advocate accepted the case of Allah Nawaz and in spite of the fact that he was a Special Attorney for the complainant in the civil suit and thus, in this way, the respondent was representing conflicting interest which was violative of the canons prescribed for the Advocate under the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 and the Rules framed thereunder, committed professional misconduct and stern action under the Act and Rules (ibid) against the respondent, was prayed for.
4. The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar initiated proceedings against the respondent and the respondent submitted the written statement wherein the allegations contained in the complaint were hotly contested. However, his position as an attorney and a party to the compromise arrived at between the' parties in the case, Ghulam Fatima v. Allah Nawaz was admitted.
5. .The Disciplinary Committee of the N.-W.F.P. Bar Council, Peshawar after recording the evidence of the parties, and considering the data available on the record referred the matter to this Tribunal vide Reference dated 11-11-2001 for final adjudication.
6. On 25-5-2001 the parties appeared before this Tribunal and submitted that they have patched up the matter and the complainant opted not to persue the matter any further. Anyhow, counsel for the parties was directed to address this Tribunal on the point that whether the alleged compromise will exonerate the respondent of the misconduct alleged or proved against him.
' We have heard the counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Deputy Advocate-General for the Government of N.-W.F.P. And with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
7. Perusal of the record would show that the factum of being an attorney of Mst. Surriya Begum by the respondent as well as the fact that the respondent accepted the brief of the case on behalf of Allah Nawaz in the subsequent instituted suit by the complainant on the basis of the pronote, has been proved on the record. The parties were very closely related i,e, the respondent being the son of Mst. Ghulam Fatima sister of the complainant. The respondent was morally bound not to have betrayed the trust reposed by the complainant in him and any violation of this sacred trust by the respondent will definitely amount to a professional misconduct as held in the case of Mst. Surriya v.
Sohail, Advocate, Peshawar reported in 1999 YLR 2315.
8. The question of withdrawal of the complaint of professional misconduct came for consideration before the Punjab Bar Council Tribunal in a case titled Muhammad Amin v. M. Asghar Kokar, Advocate reported in 1992 CLC 1556 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. Furthermore, even, the withdrawal of a complaint will not exonerate the respondent, because in a case of misconduct no withdrawal can exonerate the respondent.
However, the same can be taken as mitigating circumstances while determining the quantum of punishment. The case of Asghar Kokar referred to above has consistently been followed in Irshad Khan v. Gohar Rahman Khatak, Advocate 2000 M LD 1264, Wajid Ali v. Zafar Khalid, Advocate 2000 M LD 1275 and Ali Rehman v. Zaheer-ud-Din Baber, Advocate 2001 M LD 895 so the application for withdrawal is rejected.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we find the respondent guilty of professional misconduct but taking into consideration the compromise arrived at between the parties, would take a lenient view of the matter, only reprimand the respondent with no order as to costs.