Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JABDUL HAQ MUKHTEAR VS Respondent: THE STATE
P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak
P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak.) 323 Present: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Amiruddin Ahmad, J
JABDUL HAQ MUKHTEAR-Petitioner versus THE STATE-Responent Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 24-D of 1960, decided on 3rd June 1960.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 25th April 1960, in Reference Case No. 1 of 1960).
(a) Legal practitioner
Bribe-agent for Magistrate-Misconduct-Suspended not on evidence led in case but upon material taken from record of Departmental enquiry against Magistrate-Suspension not unjustified.
Magistrate, but, later, consenting to act as intermediary, under police surveillance, to carry bribe money to Magistrate-Behaviour of legal practitioner up to engagement by police-Misconduct-Suspension for three years, justified. [p. 325]B
Hamidul Haq Chowdhury, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Moinul Haq, Advocate Supreme-Court, with him) instructed by S. S. Hoda, Attorney for Petitioner. Respondent: Not represented. Date of hearing : 3rd June 1960.
JUDGMENT
CORNELIUS, C. J.-The suspension of the petitioner, Jabdul Haq Mukhtear from practice for a period of three years appears to be based, not on a finding of guilty in respect of the charge, which was that of paying a bribe of Rs. 500 to a Magistrate, but upon the consideration that he was "in the habit of advancing loan and giving other presents to the Magistrate with a view to securing favourable orders for his clients from him" and that these were "very serious acts which are not merely derogatory of the Mukhtear but also involve moral turpitude."
It appears that the conclusion was founded not on any, evidence led in the case, but upon material taken from the record of the departmental enquiry against the Magistrate, and this has enabled counsel to present the argument that Jabdul flaq has been removed, temporarily it may be, from his profession for what amounts to a criminal offence, upon evidence, which is totally irrelevant to the said offence as charged.
The argument is correct, so far as it goes, but it does not suffice to exonerate the petitioner from the charge of unprofes sional conduct, or misconduct. The High Court appear to have thought that the fact that the evidence in the case was such that no conviction under section 161, P. P. C. could be had was the reason for the non-prosecution of Jabdul Haq. On proper appreciation of the evidence, the facts which emerge are as follows. The Magistrate having before him a commitment case in which Jabdul Haq's brother was engaged as Mukhtear, suggested to Jabdul Haq that if the accused paid him Rs. 1,000 he would not commit them, but would discharge them. Jabdul Haq com municated this to his brother, and thereafter was in touch with the Magistrate on several occasions while the negotiations, which are concerned mainly with the amount of the bribe were in progress. The representative of the accused persons, Gias by name, becoming suspicious went himself to the Magistrate, to assure himself that the demand was not bogus. Being satisfied that the demand was not one fabricated by the Mukhtear, Gias attempted to raise the money, and shrewdly approached a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Moulvi Latif Hossain, for a loan. This gentleman, on becoming aware of the purpose, communicated with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, who attempted to reach the money directly to the Meaistrate, but finding that he would not take a step unless Jabdul Had was the intermediary, the Police used money to the Magistrate. It is significant that having been given Rs. 500 in marked notes, Jabdul Haq, as he admits, retained three hundred-rupee notes and replaced them by ten-rupee notes from his own possession, and what is more, only took Rs. 400 in all with him to the Magistrate which he prevailed upon him to accept. When, on coming out of the house, Jabdul Haq gave the signal and the raiding party went into the house, no sign could be found of the marked notes, indicating a skilful modus operandi on the part of the Magistrate, or even perhaps, of Jabdul Haq.
On this evidence, it is true that abetment of bribery could not have been successfully established against Jabdul Haq, but it is equally impossible to suggest that his part was that of an innocent agent throughout. The police were obliged to employ him because in the particular transaction of bribery, he had developed for himself, by his earlier intervention, such a position of trust and confidence with the corrupt Magistrate, that to catch the latter red-handed taking this particular bribe was only possible if it was ; paid by Jabdul Haq.
The behaviour up to the point of his engagement by their Police was the sole reason for such engagement. That behaviour is quite impossible to tolerate in a legal practitioner. It strikes at the very basis of justice, as administered at present, through the medium of honest judicial officers, aided by honest lawyers.
Jabdul Haq's conduct in the case is proved by evidence, much of which has come from his own mouth. That conduct is by no means excused by his consenting to be the intermediary, under Police surveillance, at the end. As has been seen, he retained his, personal freedom of action to the last, by changing the marked money given to him, and by reducing the amount he gave to the corrupt Magistrate. -
Accordingly, on the record, the order of suspension is fully justified by the proved conduct of Jabdul Haq. It is pleaded that the period of suspension viz. three years is excessive for an old man. In our opinion, a man whether old or young, who possesses such a character as that shown by Jabdul Haq in this case, is hardly fit to be a legal practitioner at all.
We dismiss this petition.
A. H. Petition dismissed.