On September 7, 1967, thirteen members of the High Court Bar Association, including Major Waheed-ud-Din, Advocate, submitted a requisition for calling a special general meeting. The requisition Exh. P. A. Was actually handed over to Khawaja Muhammad Waheed, Vice-President of the Bar Association, in the absence of the President. The Vice-President of the Association passed an. Order calling for the special general meeting for the 9th of September 1967. The order of the Vice-- President is Exh. P. A/1. The meeting was actually convened on the date fixed. Sixty-four members of the High Court Bar Association were present at the time of the special general meeting convened in order to consider the resolution Exh. P. B. Which was annexed to the requisition. The resolution Exh. P. C/2 for the special general meeting was considered and unanimously passed. In the resolution adopted at the special general meeting of the Bar Association, twenty respondents were considered to be touts and it was further resolved that the names of these touts be brought to the notice of this Court for including them in the list of touts. As the request of the President of the High Court Bar Association that action on the resolution be taken in the High Court, the learned Chief Justice passed the order on the 18th of September 1967, to the effect that this matter be entertained in the High Court. The respondents were served and with the exception of Mansab A.I, filed written statements denying that they acted as touts and contested the proceedings taken against them under section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act.
2. The High Court Bar Association not only relied on the resolution unanimously passed against the respondents, but also produced oral evidence of general repute. The resolution after referring the names of respondents reads :- "This Emergent General Meeting of the West Pakistan High Court Bar Association, Lahore, resolved that as (the respondents) are habitually acting as Touts, therefore, they are unanimously declared by this House at Touts and it is further resolved that the names of these touts be sent to the High Court c f West Pakistan, Lahore, for placing their names on the list of Touts."
3. It is evident from the requisition (Exh. P. A) that the meeting was convened to consider whether the respon--dents acted as habitual touts and to take such action against them under the Legal Practitioners Act as was necessary. Rule 29 of the High Court Bar Association Rules provides as under :- "A Special General Meeting shall be convened by the Committee whenever a requisition for the same shall be made in manner hereinafter provided :-
(i) Any ten or more members may require the Committee to convene a Special General Meeting.
Every such requisi--petition shall be made in writing and shall state concisely the nature of the business to be laid before the proposed meeting and the precise terms of every motion which it is proposed to put to the meeting and shall be dated and signed by the requisitionists and delivered to the Secretary.
(ii) The Committee shall within twenty days of the receipt of any such requisition if the same be found to be in order convene a Special General Meeting for the disposal of the business mentioned therein but no business other than that entered in the requisition shall be considered at such meeting.
(iii) Should ten or more members deem it necessary to call an Urgent General Meeting they shall by a requisition duly signed and dated apply to the Secretary shall on receipt of such a requisition call a meeting not later than three days from the receipt of such requisition.
Provided that in the case of emergency the President or in his absence the Vice-President or in the absence of both two members of the Executive Committee may further reduce the period of notice required under this rule. No business other than that entered in the requisition shall be considered at such a meeting."
4. It was contended before me that the meeting was not in order, as it was called during the Summer Vacations when the majority of the members of the Bar Association were out of station.
Counsel for the respondents was unable to point out to any such bar in the Rules of the Association against the calling of a Special General Meeting during Summer Vacations. It was also submitted that the notice for the Special General Meeting convened was short. I do not agree. As the requisition was for Special General Meeting, therefore, the B Vice-President on receipt of requisition was competent to call a meeting nor later than three days from the receipt of such requisition. It cannot, therefore, be held that the notice for the Special General Meeting was short or that the meeting so convened contravened any rule.
5. Next, it was argued that the notice for the Special General Meeting was improper in that individual members were not informed of the meeting .By sending out a special notice by post.
Rule 31 provides for notice and reads thus :- "Not less than seven clear days' notice (excluding the date of the issue of the notice) of every General Meeting shall be given to members except when the Secretary convenes a meeting as provided for in rule 29 (iii) Provided that the Executive Committee may call a Special General Meeting by giving three days' notice when such Committee considers the calling the such meeting necessary and provided also that such meeting shall not deal with matters dealt with in Rule 33 and notwithstanding Rule 31(a) no notice of such meetings need be sent to out-station members.
31(a) Such notice shall be given by :-
(i) Posting the notice in some conspicuous place in the Library;
(ii) Circulating notice book to such members as can conveniently be informed in that way ; and
(iii) Sending out a special notice by post, addressed to every member not resident at Lahore and to every member resident at Lahore who may have requested the Secretary to send him notices in this way and shall register his address in the Secretary's office.
Provided that when this rule has been substantially complied with the non-receipt of notice by any member or members shall not render the proceedings of any meeting irregular or affect the validity of any resolution passed thereat."
6. It is on the record that notice for the Special General Meeting was pasted on the notice board in the Library. The notice book was also circulated in accordance with rule 31 (a) (ii) to such members who were in Lahore at the material time. It was not necessary, in my opinion to have sent out a special notice by post to every member not resident at Lahore and addressed to every member resident at Lahore. In view of the proviso to rule 31, there had been sufficient compliance ofthis rule and the proceedings of the Special General Meeting could not be successfully assailed on the ground that the meeting held was irregular or that the resolution passed thereat was not valid.
7. Not only the requisition, but also the resolution passed at the Special General Meeting clearly indicates that the meeting was specially convened for the purposes of consider--ing the complaint made by 15 members of the Association against the respondents that they habitually acted as touts and to take steps to have them declared as touts. In the cir--cumstances, it is not possible to accede to the argument that the meeting was not specially convened for the purpose of declar--ing the respondents as touts.
8. The resolution passed by the Bar Association on September 9, 1967, in my opinion constitutes legal evidence against the respondents as it has been laid down in the Explanation to subsection
(i) of section 36, Legal Practitioners Act that the passing of a resolution, declaring any person to be or not to be a tout by a majority of the members present at a meeting specially convened for the purpose, of an association of persons entitled to practise as legal practitioners in any Court or revenue office, shall be evidence of the general repute of such persons for the purposes of this sub--section.
9. In my view, the meeting was properly convened and the Special General Meeting was held for the purpose of passing the resolution in question after it had been properly notified to the members of the Association.
10. The contention, that the members present at the meeting did not consider the case of each of the respondents separately for themselves and that there was no evidence before members present, has no substance. It is nowhere provided by Act XV of 1926 that tangible evidence should be there before the members present at a Special General Meeting to prove that a particular individual habitually acted as a tout whom they consider for being declared as such. After the amendment, the Court can act on the general repute of the suspected tout and it is not necessary to call witnesses to prove that the suspected person received remuneration from legal practitioners for procuring their engagement.
11. The Bar Association also relied on the testimony of certain legal practitioners and others to prove that the respondents acted as touts. Major Waheed-ud-Din (P. W. 2) deposed that he had been seeing the respondents pestering the litigants in the Court premises. He asserted that he knew per- -sonally that the respondents procure engagement of certain counsel in cases and get a share out of the fee. The witness continued that the respondents procure the engagement of Ch. Muhammad Anwar, Advocate, and get a share out of the fee. It is also in the statement of this witness that he had invariably been seeing Raja Maula Dad Khan in the group of touts and that he learnt from a number of Advocates that Raja Maula Dad Khan procured engagement in the Supreme Court cases and got his share out of the fee as a tout. It is further in the statement of this witness that Messrs Maula Dad Khan and Muhammad Ayub Khan deceive the litigant public by telling them that they are the lawyers whom they were looking for when in fact they are not. Major Waheed--ud-Din quoted an instance in point and said that the afore--said gentleman charged Rs. 1,000.00 in cash and Rs. 500.00 by means of a cheque from certain persons by representing that they were the juniors of Mr. Brohi and when those persons went to Ch. Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, he wanted to lodge a criminal case against Maula Dad and Muhammad Ayub, but the matter was compromised as they returned the cash they had received as well as the cheque. Sh. Rafiq Ahmad (P. W. 3), who was the Secretary of the High Court Bar Association in the year 1963, deposed that he had been seeing Ghulam Hassan, Asadullah and Nisar Ahmad respon--dents alongwith others operating as touts within the compound of the High Court. He complained to the Registrar in this connection. Mr. Maula Bakhsh Khizar. Tamimi (P. W. 4) referred to an incident which took place on December 17, 1967, at about 9-00 a.m. When he was present in his office at 4-Mozang Road, Lahore.
He was informed by a neighbour that three persons who had a letter addressed to him were taken away by Asadullah respondent towards the Edwards Road, Lahore. Mr. Maula Bakhsh Khizar Tamimi left his office and came across those persons at the junction of the Turner Road and Mozang Road.
The witness inferred them in their own dialect that if they wanted to see Mr. Maula Bakhsh Khizar Tamimi, he was there. They replied that Maula Bakbsh Khizar Tamimi was reported to be at Sargodha and Miau. Mabmud A.I Qxsuri was away to Karachi. Mr. Tamimi told them that he had met Mr. Qasuri a day earlier at Lahore. He took those clients to the High Court Bar Association. On the northern gate of the High Court Bar Room they came across Mr. Ghulam Majadad Mirza, Advo- -cate, and others. Mr. Khizar Tamimi asked the clients who were from Mianwali to ascertain the true facts, Upon this, Mr. Ghulam Majadac Mirza, Advocate, enquired from them as to whom they wanted to engage and they replied that they had a letter for Mr. Maula Bakhsh Khizar Tamimi, Advocate. They did not feel satisfied by the assurance held out to them and came to him a day later and engaged him. Ch. Muhammad Husain Advocate (P. W. 5) had filed a com--plaint against Muhammad Ayub respondent. He had filed a writ petition on behalf of one Haji Jalal bin against the Border Allotment Committee, Narowal. Haji Jalal Din had sent two others to Ch. Muhammad Hussain, Advocate, with a note that he should also file a writ petition on their behalf as well because their case was identical with that of Haji Jalal Din, which had already been admitted and a stay order granted. Ch. Muhammad Hussain met those per--sons and they told him that two years ago, they were given a chit and when they came to the High Court, they were introduced to Muhammad Ayub respondent. They paid Rs. 100.00 for court-fee and also the fee that was demanded for filing the writ petition to Raja Muhammad Ayub, as they were given to understand that Ch. Muhammad Hussain had left for Jhelum and that Muhammad Ayub Khan was handling all his cases. Mr. M. A. Zullah (now Mr. Justice) stated that Rashid and Anayat respondents as also Raja Muhammad Ayub and Raja Maula Dad were known to him. When Mr. M. A. Zullah practised at Rawalpindi, he had the occasion to see Inayat respondent in Court who had the reputation of being a tout. Occasionally, Inayat respondent got himself attach--ed with a lawyer. The witness continued that he had been seeing Rashid respondent roaming about in the porchway between the High Court and the Bar Room Building mostly. After Court hours, he had been seeing him on Turner Road and Fane Road. Some persons connected with a murder case mentioned to Mr. M. A.
Zullah that they had come to engage him but Raja Muhammad Ayub misled them and took them to his office and charged them the fee. Later on, those very per--sons engaged Mr. M. A. Zullah and disclosed to him what had happened and insisted for some concession in fee but Mr. M. A. Zullah told them that they should better have the money refunded to them which they had paid to Raj-- Muhammad Ayub. There is sufficient corroboration of the statement of Mr. M. A. Zullah by Ch. Jehan Dad (P. W. 8). Against Asadullah respondent, there is also the evidence of Ikram-ul-Haq (P. W. 9) that he took him to Maula Lead Khan on the pretence that Maula Dad Khan was the senior of Ch, Hamid-ud-Din, whom Ikram-ul-Haq had come to ciigagc. Ikram--ul-Haq had a letter of introduction with him for Ch. Hamid--ud-Din from Ch. Ghulam Muhammad. Ikram-ul-Haq way on his way to the deru 9f Ch. Hamid-ud-Din when Asadullah respondent represented to him that Ch. Hamid-ud-Din was away to Gujranwala in connection with a marriage. Raja Maula Dad took the ruqqa which Ikram-ul-Huq had from Ch. Ghulam Muhammad for Ch. Hamid-ud-Din and charged Rs. 220.00 as fee from Ikram-ul-Haq. Later, on, Ikram-ul-- Haq learned that Maula Dad was not the senior of Ch. Hamid-ud-Din and that he had been duped by Asadullah. Ikram-ul-Haq got back Rs.
100.00 from Maula Dad in the presence of Muhammad Ayub and engaged Ch. Hamid-ud-Din.
Muhammad Boota (P. W. 10) disclosed that in similar circum--stances he was taken by Ghulam Hussain respondent to Muhammad Ayub who obtained from Boota Rs. 200.00 but failed to get a stay order. Boota came to Lahore a month late, met Ch. Hamid-ud-Din whom he had initially come to engage and took back the papers from Muhammad Ayub. He returned Rs. 50.00 to Boota and then Boota engaged Ch. Hamid-ud-Din. Muhammad Zaman (P. W. 11) was also similarly deceived by Ghulam Husain respondent. He had gage Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan Bar-at-- Law but Ghulam Husain took him to Muhammad Ayub and got him engaged. Ghulam Hussain had represented to Muhammad Zaman that Sardar Ibrahim was away and had entrusted all his cases to Muhammad Ayub. Later on, Muhammad Zaman met Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and be told him that he did not go out of Lahore. Raja Muhammad Ayub did not refund the fee, which he had charged from Muhammad Zaman. Waryam (P. W. 15) also fell a victim at the hands of Ghulam Hussain respondent and narrated similar tale of woe. He had come to engage Mr. Tariq Bajwa.
Ghulam Hussain represented that he was a clerk of Mr. Tariq Bajwa and then took him to Raja Muhammad Ayub who obtained the sum of Rs. 67.00 from him. Later on, Waryam came to know that a hoax was practised on him. There is also the evidence of Abdus Sattar Najam, Advocate against Ghulam Husain and others. He de--posed that he always noticed Ghulam Hasan, Nisar, Akhtar A.I Shah, Asadullah and Saleem Butt hovering about on the Fane Road and would pursue every person whom they considered has business in Courts. They solicited clientele for Messrs Muhammad Ayub Khan and Maula Dad Khan.Once while going to his chamber, Mr. Najam found Ghulam Hassan respondent following one Ghulam Haider who was the client of Mr. Najam and on his intervention Ghulam Hasan replied that he too had to earn his livelihood. Mr. Najam practised jointly with Muhammad Rashid and he was infor--med by one Muhammad that he alongwith others had come to engage Mr. Najam and his partner, but at the in--stance of Ghulam Hasan and Nisar, who represented to them that they were the clerks of Mr. Najam and that he had gone to Karachi and on this false pretence took Muhammad and others to Muhammad Ayub Khan. The aforesaid respondents told Muhammad and others that in the absence of Messrs Najam and Muhammad Rashid, their work was done by Muhammad Ayub Khan and he also confirmed it. This was further confirmed by Maula Dad Khan. The number of the writ petition referred to is 980 of 1967.
Mr. Najam inspected the file and found that no document had been filed with the writ petition. He redrafted the writ petition and refiled it. On another occasion, Mr. Najam found Ghulam Hasan and Nisar respondents together with others persuading certain clients. Mr, Najam overheard the clients saying that they wanted to engage Muhammad Rashid Advocate and when Mr. Najam told them that they had come to the right place in his search, he was assaulted by Ghulam Hasan and others including Nisar. Mr. Najam made an application (copy Exh. P. W. 12/A), to the learned Chief Justice on the following day. Mr. Najam was rescued by Messrs Ghazanfar A.I Gondal, Mushtaq Raj, Muhammad Ahmad Wani Advocates and a few others including some clerks. Mr. Abdus Sattar Najam was cross-examined at length, but after considering what he stated in cross-examination it is not possible for me to come to the conclusion that he gave evidence against the respondents out of sheer malice.
12. Next we come to the evidence of Mian Mahmud A.I Qasuri. Some clients had come from Peshawar to engage Mr. Qasuri in a murder reference, but the clients were entit--led and asked to engage some other counsel. It was men--tioned to the clients that Mr. Qasuri was away to Dacca and would not be available for a number of days. The clients went to Mr. Shafi Ullah Khan, Assistant Inspector-General of Police and he spoke to Mr. Fazal Husain who told him that Mr. Qasuri was at Lahore. The clients then came to Mr. Qasuri and engaged him. He told his clerk to find out who those persons were who had misinformed the clients and it is in the evidence of M. Muhammad Ajmal Clerk (P. W. 14) to Mr. Qasuri that those clients, who were from Peshawar, accompanied him to the High Court and pointed to Muhammad Ameer respondent saying that he was one of those three persons who misled them that Mr. Qasuri was away to Dacca. It is fur--their clear from the evidence of this witness that with the exception of Bashir Ahmad and Rashid the rest indulge in tourism.
13. In the year 1963, when Sh. Rafiq Ahmad was Secretary of the High Court Bar Association, he was going to his office on the Fane Road accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Clerk, Mr. Rafiq saw a person holding some papers. Nisar Ahmad and Asadullah respondents alongwith others ran after that man. Mr. Rafiq asked them what they were doing and Raja Muhammad Ayub, who had also turned up, told Mr. Rafiq that they were his clerks. Nisar Ahmad tried to grapple with Mr. Rafiq. In view of the evidence of this witness, it is not possible for me to hold that action against the respondents, particularly Messrs Maula Dad Khan and Raja Muhammad Ayub, was initiated on account of their animosity with Major Waheed-ud-Din or Rafiq Ahmad Sheikh due to the controversy about their membership of the High Court Bar Association. Muhammad Latif (P. W. 16), who is Assistant in the office of the West Pakistan Bar Council, stated that 37 complaints against Raja Muhammad Ayub and 12 against Raja Maula Dad Khan (otherwise known as M. D. Janjua) had been received in the Bar Council. It was stated at the Bar that Messrs Muhammad Ayub and Maula Dad Khan had been debarred from practising as a result of action taken by the Bar Council for a number of years.
14. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Advocate (D. W. 1) denied that the reference in the statement read out to him by the counsel for Haji Bashir Ahmad was to him. Din Muhammad (D. W. 2) was called to prove that Muhammad Ameer respondent made an application for membership of the Clerks Association, but he was not enrolled as a member as is not a Matriculate. Muhammad Asadullah respondent deposed that he worked as a clerk with his father Raja Maula Dad Khan and called Muhammad Hayat (D. W. 3) and Muhammad Azim (D. W. 4) in support of his defence that in July, 1961, Asadullah joined the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company. Muhammad Hayat is related to Asadullah through his mother. Muhammad Azim is the uncle of Asadullah. They are interested and no reliance can be placed on their evidence. Sardar Majid Lashari (D. W. 6) and Ghulam Rasul Waraich (D. W. 7) supported Ameer Khan respondent and stated that he worked as a clerk--cum- typist and not as a tout. Mr. Habib Isma il Bajwa deposed that Muhammad Ameer worked with him as clerk-cum-typist from October 1963 to April 1966, and that there was no com--plaint against him. Rashid Ahmad respondent asserted in his statement that he never worked as a tout. He submitted that he worked with Khan Muhammad Ajmal and thereafter with Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan. He is now working with Haji Shafi Muhammad, Advocate, It is in the statement of Ghulam Hasan that he is graduate and works with Muhammad Ayub as his clerk. Inayat Husain respondent disclosed in his statement that he was a peon in the High Court, but was removed from service by the Late Mr. Justice M. R. Kayani. Inayat Husain worked as lawyer's clerk. He was recalled to the Army at the time of War with India in the year 1965. After the War, he went to his home town in Gujjar Khan. He says that he came to Lahore to see his brother and the Bar Association passed the resolution against him. It may here be stated that it transpired during the proceedings that Inayat Hussain and Rashid had also been declared touts earlier. Saleem Butt and Mansab A.I respondents did not make a statement and produced no evidence. Akhtar A.I Shah ex-peon of the office of the Advocate-General took the plea that the resolution was passed against him because he got a case under section 342, P. P. C. Registered against Major Waheed-ud-Din Virk. He also asserted that he worked as a lawyer's clerk. He called Mr. Niaz Muhammad Siddiqi, Bar-at-Law in his defence, but Mr. Siddiqi found himself in considerable difficulty when he was shown the letter Exh. P. H. Dated the 19th October 1966, in which he had made a request to the Secretary, High Court Bar Association, for action to be taken against Akhtar A.I Shah. The witness tried to explain that Akhtar Shah mentioned by him in Exh. P. H. Was different from Akhtar A.I Shah respondent, He was, however, constrained to admit that he knew only Akhtar A.I Shah respondent and that he had never seen Akhtar Shah, mentioned by him in the letter Exh. P. H. Raja Muhammad Ayub asserted that there was controversy about his membership of the High Court Bar Association and that he was not enrolled as a Member. He said further in his state--ment that Ghulam Hasan is his real brother and works with him as his clerk. In my opinion, Messrs Muhammad Ayub and Maula Dad Khan could not retain so many persons as clerks. The inference is obvious that they mixed up with these persons and they procured engagements for these two gentle--men. I am not prepared to believe that so many persons were the clerks of these two lawyers. It is a legitimate and reasonable inference of fact that if a man is shown to spend the greater portion of his working hours in canvassing and introducing clients to members of the profession, he is not rendering gratuitous service such as a casual friend or acquain--tance may do. Raja Maula Dad Khan ascribed the action initiated against him by the High Court Bar as a result of professional jealousy and political rivalry. He produced a pamphlet "Aina-i-Haqiqat" of which he himself is the author. What is said in the pamphlet is not in good taste. Simi--larly para. 2 of his written statement was also not considered to be in good taste and was ordered to be deleted. Mr. M. D. Janjua did not produce any other evidence. Mohd. Ayub and M. D. Janjua have been debarred due to mal--practice in which they indulged. The evidence produced by the respondents is worthless and I discard it.
15. I have gone through the cases cited at the Bar Kundan Lal v. Emperor ((1931) 130 I C 629), Sham Lal v. Emperor (AIR 1931 Lah. 543), Yeshwant Rao Shantaram v. Secretary, High Court Bar Association (AIR 1932 Nag. 141), Achar Khuda Baksh v. Bar Association, Karachi (AIR 1937 Sind 4), Mian Muhammad Hussain etc. v. The Bar Association, Gujrat (PLD 1951 Lah. 38) and Rajjab A.I Bhuiyan v: The State (PLD 1963 Dacca 774). On going through these cases, I am left with the impression that after the amendment in the Legal Practitioners Act, it is no longer obligatory on the prosecution to prove that the person accused receives remuneration from legal practitioners. This proof may be supported by circumstances leading to the inference that the person accused was, in the habit of receiving remuneration from legal practitioners.
16. There is overwhelming evidence against the respon--dents in this case, I have mainly relied on the resolution passed in the, meeting specially convened in which sixty-four members were present. Their names appear at page 119 of the General Meeting Proceedings Book. The resolution Exh. P. C. 2 for the Special General Meeting was considered and unanimously passed. Its copy is Exh.
P. C. 3.
17. The respondents took part in the proceedings after service, but some of them absented at one stage or the other and although the proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature, but the respondents being not accused persons in strict sense of the term, no coercive process could be issued. No objection was taken as regards the nature and legality of the proceedings which are more or less of departmental in nature. See Achar Khuda Baksh v. Bar Association Karachi.
18. The cumulative effect of the evidence produced by the Bar Association on my mind is that the respondents are touts. As action against Messrs Muhammad Ayub and Maula Dad Khan has already been taken by the Bar Council and they have been debarred from practising, therefore, I do not propose to make any order against them in these proceedings. The rest are declared as touts. Their names shall be published in the Gazette and they are forbidden from entering the precincts of Courts.