Mishrilal vs District Judge, Jodhpur And Ors. on 28 October, 1970
It is correct that Chimanlal's case, 1962 (1) Cri LJ 329 (Guj), supports the contention of the learned counsel. With great respect, we are unable to agree with this decision. The requirements of the Explanation Indicated above are that a resolution of the Bar Association before it becomes evidence of general repute of a person being a tout must be passed (a) by a majority of members present at the meeting, (b) that the meeting must be specially convened for the purpose, and (c) that it must be a meeting of the association of persons entitled to practise as legal practitioners in any Court or revenue office. We have already noticed that the name of the petitioner first came before the Sub-Committee constituted by the Rajas-than High Court Advocates Association to consider the names of 8 persons as touts. This special Sub-Committee recommended to the general body the name of the petitioner as one of the additional names to be declared as a tout. The Secretary of the Bar Association issued a general notice on the 8th May, 1968, inter alia stating that a special general meeting will be held on 18-5-1968 at 9-30 A.M. in the Bar Association. The members were requested to make it a point to attend. The purpose of the meeting, the notice indicates, was to consider the report submitted by the Sub-Committee constituted by the Association in regard to toutism. It was notified that the aforesaid report was available with the Secretary and could be inspected at any time and further
a copy of the report was also attached to the notice. The notice indicated that under Section 36 of the Legal Practitioners Act before a resolution could ba passed about holding the named persons in the report as touts, such a meeting was necessary. The notice was individually served on every member. In our opinion this is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law. It was an exhaustive notice giving every particular regarding the business of the meeting, the time and place of the meeting and the opportunity to the members to acquaint themselves with the names, if they so cared, because the report was available with the Secretary and was attached to the notice. It was not necessary to specifically name the person who was to be considered for being named as a tout in the notice. When the members of the Bar Association whose learned profession qualifies them to protect the rights of others are notified to attend a meeting on such a subject it is reasonable to presume that they would be alive to their responsibility and would apply their minds before condemning any person to be a tout. The notice, therefore, suffered from no inadequacy.