Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Shri Daphtary contends that the tribunal appointed by the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Rajasthan to enquire into the alleged misconduct of the appellant was improperly constituted and all proceedings taken before the tribunal, the report made by it and the subsequent order passed by the High Court pursuant to this report are all invalid. This point arises in this way. The tribunal consisted of three members with Shri Changani as it,-, Chairman. It is common ground that Shri Chhangani had filed his vakalat on behalf of Dr. Prem Chand in proceedings under s. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on August 23, 1952, and had in fact argued the case on that date. Shri Daphtary contends that since Shri Chhangani had appeared in the criminal proceedings in question for the opponent he was disqualified from acting as a member of the tribunal and this disqualification introduces a fatal infirmity in the constitution of the tribunal itself There is some force in this argument. It is well settled that every member of a tribunal that is called upon to try issues in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings must be able to act judicially; and it is of the essence of judicial decisions and judicial administration that judges should be able to act impartially, objectively and without any bias. In such cases the test is not Whether in fact a bias has affected the judgment; the test always is and must be whether a, litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias attributable to a member of the tribunal might have operated against him in the final decision of the tribunal. It is in this sense that it, is often said that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done. As Viscount Cave L. C. has observed in From United Brewerses Co. v. Bath Justices (1) " this rule has been asserted not only in the case of Courts of Justices and other judicial tribunals but in the case of authorities which, though in no sense to be called Courts, have to act as judges of the rights of others ". In dealing with cases of bias attributed to members constituting tribunals, it is necessary to make a distinction between pecuniary interest and prejudice so attributed. It is obvious that pecuniary interest, however small it may be in a subject-matter of the proceedings, would wholly disqualify a member from acting as a judge. But where pecuniary interest is not attributed but instead a bias is suggested, it often becomes necessary to consider whether there is a reasonable ground for assuming the possibility of a bias and whether it is likely to produce in the minds of the litigant, or the public at large a reasonable doubt about the fairness of the administration of justice. It would always be a question of fact to be decided in each case. " The principle says Halsbury, "nemo debet esse judex in causaproprta sua precludes a justice, who is interested in the subjectmatter of a dispute, from acting as a justice therein " (2). In our opinion, there is and can be no doubt about the validity of this principle and we are prepared to assume that this principle applies not only to the justices as mentioned by Halsbury but to all tribunals and bodies which are given jurisdiction to determine judicially the rights of parties. In support of his argument, Shri Daphtary referred us to the decision in Rex v. Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy (3). In this case, the Court was dealing with a case &rising out of a collision between a motor (1) [1926] A.C. 586, 590.

145. We are told that Shri Chhangani is a senior member of the Bar and was once Advocate-General of the High Court of Rajasthan. Besides he had not appeared in the case at all stages but had appeared only once as a senior counsel to argue the matter. It is, therefore, not at all unlikely that Shri Chhangani had no personal contact with the client Dr. Prem Chand and may not have been aware of the fact that, in the case from which the present proceedings arose, he had appeared at any stage for Dr. Prem Chand. We are, however, inclined to hold that this fact does not in any way affect the legal argument urged before us by Shri Daphtary. It is not Shri Daphtary's case that Shri Chhangani actually had a bias against the appellant and that the said bias was responsible for the final report made against the appellant. Indeed it is unnecessary for Shri Daphtary to advance such an argument. If Shri Chhangani was disqualified from working as a member of the tribunal by reason of the fact that he had appeared for Dr.' Prem Chand in the criminal proceedings under s. 145 in question, then it would not be necessary for Shri Daphtary to prove that any prejudice in fact had been caused or that Shri Chhangani improperly influenced the final decision of the tribunal. Actual proof of prejudice in such cases may make the, appellant's case stronger but such proof is not necessary in order that the appellant should effectively raise the argument that the, tribunal was not properly constituted.

time. In other words, though the point of law raised by Shri Daphtary against the competence of the, tribunal be sound, it is still necessary for us to consider whether the appellant was precluded from raising this point before the High Court by waiver or acquiescence.

From the record it is clear that the appellant never raised this point before the tribunal and the manner in which this point was raised by him even before the High Court is somewhat significant. The first 'round of objection filed by the appellant against the tribunal's report was that Shri Chhangani had pecuniary and personal interest in the complainant, Dr. Prom Chand. The learned Judges of the High Court have found that the allegations about the pecuniary interest of Shri Chhangani in the present proceedings are wholly unfounded and this finding has not been challenged before us by Shri Daphtary. The learned Judges of the High Court have also found that the objection was raised by the appellant before them only to obtain an order for a fresh enquiry and thus gain time. It may be conceded in favour of Shri Daphtary that the judgment of the High Court does not in terms find against the appellant on the ground of waiver though that no doubt appeare to be the substance of their conclusion. We have, however, heard Shri Daphtary's case on the question of waiver and we have no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the appellant waived his objection deliberately and cannot now be allowed to raise it. Shri Daphtary does not contend that at the material time the appellant did not remember the fact that Shri Chhangani had appeared for Dr. Prem Chand in the criminal proceedings. Indeed such a plea cannot be raised by the appellant in view of the affidavit which the appellant sought to place before us in the present appeal. -Under this affidavit, the appellant's case appears to be that until lie met his advocate Shri Murli Manohar for filing objections to the report of the tribunal, the appellant did not know that Shri Chhangani was legally disqualified from acting as a member of the tribunal. It is obvious that this ground necessarily implies that the appellant knew about the facts giving ise to the alleged disqualification of Shri Chhangani to act as a member of the tribunal. In substance, the Contention is that though the appellant knew that Shri Chhangani had appeared for Dr. Prem Chand in the criminal proceedings in question, he was not aware that, in consequence, Shri Chhangani was disqualified to act as a member of the tribunal. It is this limited aspect of the matter which is pressed before us by Shri Daphtary. Shri Daphtary contends and no doubt rightly that if we are satisfied that the appellant did not know about the true legal position in this matter and his rights arising therefrom, his failure to challenge the appointment of Shri Chhangani on the tribunal would not raise an effective plea of waiver. However, in our opinion, it is very difficult to accept Shri Daphtary's argument that his client did not know the true legal position or his rights until he met Shri Murli Manohar. No doubt the appellant is a junior at the Bar but even so he can claim ten years' standing at the Bar. Besides, he had the assistance of a lawyer in defending him in the present proceedings and it appears extremely difficult to assume that neither the appellant nor his lawyer knew that the presence of Shri Chhangani in the tribunal could be effectively challenged by them. We are disposed to think that even a layman, not familiar with legal technicalities and equitable principles on which this doctrine of disability has been based, would have immediately apprehended that the lawyer who had appeared for Dr. Prem Chand was authorised to sit in judgment over the conduct of the appellant and that might cause embarassnient to the appellant and might lead to prejudice against him. From a purely common sense point of view of a layman, the position was patently awkward, and so, the argument that the appellant was not conscious of his legal rights in this matter appears to us to be an afterthought. Since the appellant was driven to adopt this untenable position before the High Court in seeking to raise this point for the first time at that stage, we are not surprised that the High Court took the view that the plea had been taken late in order, to gain time and to secure a fresh enquiry in the matter. Since we have no doubt that the appellant knew the material facts and must be deemed to have been conscious of his legal rights in that matter, his failure to take the present plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings creates an effective bar of waiver against him. It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report, from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point. Then Shri Daphtary sought to challenge the main conclusion of the High Court that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct on a preliminary ground. He contended that the High Court judgment shows that the learned Judges had considered some inadmissible evidence in the absence of the appellant and without giving him an opportunity to be heard on the said evidence and that had introduced an infirmity in the judgment which vitiated their final conclusions. It appears from the judgment of the High Court that the learned Judges sent for and looked into the record of Revision Application No. 31 of 1951 in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Pali, and the record of Case No. 134 of 1951 in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sojat. Shri Daphtary has made pointed reference to the fact that the record in Case No. 134 of 1951 was sent for by the High Court after this matter had been argued before them. If we had been satisfied that the learned Judges of the High Court had taken into consideration material documents which were not before them at the time the case was argued before them, we would certainly have considered Shri Daphtary's grievance more seriously. We are, however, not satisfied that the grievance made by Shri Daphtary against this alleged irregularity is really justified. The High Court judgment shows that the appellant argued before the High Court that he could not have been concerned with the fabrication of the false order because his subsequent conduct showed that he was not at all interested in seeing that the said order was implemented.. In fact, this argument has been characterised by the High Court as plausible but not sound. It was this argument which provoked the reply from the other side that in fact the fabricated order had been implemented and in support of this reply reference was made to the application made by Dr. Prem Chand and his men in which it had been specifically alleged that the appellant's clients had taken possession of the crops and that they had also removed them. This application had been made on September 24, 1951, and it requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to prevent the appellant's clients from taking illegal possession of the land and removing the crops. It is these two rival contentions which the learned Judges of the High Court had to examine. The judgment shows that it was substantially with a view to satisfy themselves that the application referred to by the respondent before the High Court in the course of the argument had in fact been made that the High Court subsequently called for and examined the relevant records. It may be that in the earlier part of the judgment the learned Judges have stated somewhat generally that they had looked at the records of both the cases; but it is clear from the reasons given by the learned Judges that the perusal of the records in the said two cases had played no part in the final decision of the High Court. We are, therefore, not satisfied that the procedure adopted by the High Court in dealing with this matter suffers from any serious irregularity as a result of which their final orders should be set aside and a fresh hearing of the matter should be ordered.

Then remains the question of the merits of the finding recorded by the High Court. Shri Daphtary himself was aware that this part of his case is bound to be weak in an appeal which has been admitted on Special Leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Both the tribunal and the High Court have made concurrent findings of fact against the appellant and it is difficult to accept the argument that this finding of 'fact should be re-examined on the merits by us in the present appeal. We may, however, incidentally point out that there are some salient features of the case which unequivocally support the view taken by the High Court against the appellant. It is common ground that the appellant's clients were not present before the Sessions Judge on September 6, 1951. It is admitted that the appellant was present and that he took the envelope containing the order to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. It may be that, in the State of Jodhpur, lawyers practising in subordinate courts sometimes assisted the court officers by taking packets containing judicial orders from one court to another; but, if the appellant's clients were not present in the court, it is difficult to understand how the fabricated order came to be prepared without instigation by the, appellant. It is inconceivable that officers of the court would suo motu think of fabricating the order. The order was intended to benefit the appellant's clients and, on the whole, it is an irresistible inference that the appellant must have corrupted the officers of the court by the offer of illegal consideration and induced them to fabricate the order. Shri Daphtary attempted to rely on the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in the enquiry which he held soon after he learnt about the issue of this fabricated order. We are free to confess that we are not at all satisfied with this enquiry and its final decision. However., we are really not concerned to consider the merits of this enquiry and we cannot attach any importance to an argument based on the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge in this enquiry. The High Court has taken the view, and we think rightly, that the conduct of Shri Loya should also be examined as it is obvious that both Shri Loya and Shri Maghraj were interested in persuading the Sessions Judge to take the view that the fabrication of the order was due to a mistake committed by Shri Maghraj. The theory of a mistake committed by Shri Maghraj is, in our opinion, wholly unreasonable, if not fantastic. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge on September 6, 1951, is clear beyond any doubt. Shri Maghraj read this order and it is suggested that he misconstrued its effect. How an order directing notice of the application to the opponent along with a copy of the application to be served on the opponent could ever have been construed to mean an order Directing the issue of stay, it is impossible to understand. Then again, the order actually issued is elaborate in its terms and its object clearly was to require the Sub- Divisional Magistrate to give effect to the prayers made by the appellant in his application without any delay. Besides, the endorsement made by Shri Maghraj showing that the order had been complied with and his silence on September 12, 1951, when the learned Sessions Judge found that notice had not been served are very eloquent. If Shri Maghraj had committed an honest mistake, he would have immediately reported to the learned Sessions Judge that notice had not been issued and instead erroneously an order of stay had been sent in the said proceedings. Besides, when Shri Maghraj gave evidence in the present proceedings, he did not adhere to the theory of mistake. His present version is that he prepared the draft order at the instance of the appellant before the case was argued and when he received it back duly signed by the Reader Shri Loya, it was given to the despatcher and from him it reached the hands of the appellant. There is no doubt that Shri Maghraj is an accomplice and, so like all accomplices, he has tried to minimise the part played by him in this transaction. It is true that the evidence against the appellant is substantially circumstantial and there is no a doubt that the finding against the appellant cannot be made on such circumstantial evidence unless the evidence is wholly incon- sistent with his innocence and leads irresistibly to the inference of his guilt. The judgment of the High Court shows that the learned judges were fully conscious of this legal position. They have held that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is impossible to hold that the fabricated order could have come into existence. and would have been despatched hurriedly without the active assistance and collaboration of the appellant. Shri Daphtary then argued that the failure of the complainant to examine Shri Loya, the Reader, was deliberate and he suggested that adverse inference against the complainant should be drawn in consequence. Indeed this was the only point which Shri Daphtary placed before us seriously in regard to the merits of the finding recorded by the High Court against the appellant. It may be conceded in favour of Shri Daphtary that, even in quasi-criminal proceedings like the present, all important and relevant evidence must be laid before the tribunal; but this requirement is always subject to the proviso that it is generally for the prosecutor who is in charge of the case to decide which of the witnesses are necessary for the unfolding of the case. The prosecutor no doubt must act bona fide and fairly by the court and the person against whom the proceedings have been started. Acting bona fide, if the prosecutor takes the view that certain witnesses need not be examined, generally the court would be reluctant to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. Besides, in the present case, there is no justification for drawing any such adverse inference against the complainant because Shri Loya is no better than an accomplice and it is difficult to assume that the failure of the complainant to examine an accomplice can ever give rise to an adverse inference against the complainant's case. If that be the true position, it would be idle to contend that the finding of the High Court is vitiated by reason of the fact that the High Court did not consider the effect of the complainant's failure to examine Shri Loya before the tribunal. Incidentally this point does not appear to have been pressed before the High Court. In the result, we have no hesitation in holding that no case has been made out for our interference with the conclusions of the High Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.