Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2013. Case: Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh Vs B. Narayan Swamy. Supreme Court
|Case Number:||Civil Appeal No. 7133 of 2013|
|Party Name:||Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh Vs B. Narayan Swamy|
|Counsel:||For Appellant: P. Vishwanatha Shetty, Sr. Adv., B. Ramana Murthy and Sumanth Nookala, Advs. and For Respondents: Annam D.N. Rao, Neelam Jain, Sudipto Sircar, Vaishali R. and Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Advs.|
|Judges:||Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.|
|Issue:||Notaries Act; Indian Stamp Act; Advocates Act, 1961 - Sections 2, 3, 35|
|Judgement Date:||September 15, 2014|
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1.1 Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is the Appellant. Challenge is to the order dated 17th March, 2012 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 31 of 2010 in and by which the Bar Council of India set aside the order of punishment of the Appellant dated 5th December, 2009, imposed on Respondent No. 1 herein who is a practising Advocate in the State of Andhra Pradesh for certain alleged misconduct.
The Appellant passed its order against the Respondent No. 1 on 5th December, 2009 in Complaint Case No. 34 of 2008 holding that the first Respondent committed the misconduct of violating the terms and conditions of his appointment as Notary in attesting the documents and misused his position as a Notary and failed to follow the provisions of the Notaries Act and the Indian Stamp Act. Reliance was placed upon Exhibits C3 to C6 and D1 to D2 in support of its conclusion about the guilt of Respondent No. 1. As a matter of fact, the above documents C1 to C2, photocopy of which are placed before us discloses that Respondent No. 1 had attested blank stamp papers of the value of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 20/- of three different dates namely, 8th March, 2007, 16th August, 2007 and 27th October, 2007 by affixing the seal of Notary and as an Advocate. The above documents were stated to have been forwarded to the Appellant by the Registrar General of the High Court based on a complaint made by one, Ramchandra Rao, a graduate and a private employee in Hyderabad who brought to the notice of the High Court about the professional misconduct of Respondent No. 1 herein.
In its detailed order dated 5th December, 2009 the Appellant held that the conduct of the first Respondent in having abused his position as a Notary by attesting blank stamp papers and by affixing signature along with the rubber stamp impression were in violation of the provisions of the Notaries Act in particular Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Though Respondent No. 1 contended that his role as a Notary is different from his status as an Advocate, the said stand of Respondent No. 1 was rightly rejected by the Appellant.
Unfortunately, by the impugned order, the Bar Council of India without appreciating the legal position under the Notaries Act as well as the Advocates Act, in a superficial manner, proceeded to hold that violation of the provisions of the Stamp Act and Notaries Act will have no...
To continue readingREQUEST YOUR TRIAL