| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1957 SLG 30 1957 SLD 30 1957 PLD 210 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1957, decided on 8th May 1957. DATE of hearing: 10th April 1957, (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th March 1956, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 659 of 1955).
M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Mahmud Ali, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant. S. A. Mahmud, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Amjad Hussain, Attorney as Amicus Curiae
Civil Appeal No. 20 of 1957, decided on 8th May 1957. DATE of hearing: 10th April 1957, (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th March 1956, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 659 of 1955).
M. SHAHABUDDIN, A. R. CORNELIUS, MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND AMIRUDDIN AHMED, JJ
Mahmud Ali, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by M. Siddiq, Attorney for Appellant. S. A. Mahmud, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Amjad Hussain, Attorney as Amicus Curiae
Ch. MUHAMMAD HASSAN KHAN-
VS
THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE
Law:
Section:
Advocate-------Conduct as a member of the public-Advocate interesting himself in an administrative matter before an administrative officer-Telling the officer that he would pursue the matter with superior officers, there being no hint of dishonourable or disgraceful behaviour-Advocate, held, not guilty of professional misconduct-Misconduct explained-Conduct as a public man Legal Practitioners Act (XYIII of 1879), S. 13 (f). Where an Advocate visited an administrative officer, viz, a Deputy Secretary to the Government in the Rehabilitation Department, in his office, with a view to supporting, not as a lawyer, nor acting in any manner incidental to the functions of a lawyer, the complaint of a man who ran the cycle-stand at that very office, complaining that the officer concerned contemplated appointing another person in whom, it was alleged the officer was interested "to share the management of the stand," and on the complaint being met with resistance, declared his intention to pursue the matter with superior officers, which incident was described, in the officer's report against the Advocate to the High Court, as calculating to threaten the officer with the "consequences of exposure": Held, that no act of professional misconduct had been established against the Advocate, there being no hint of any dishonourable or disgraceful conduct on the Advocate's part, The Advocate acted in the capacity of a public man and the task, he undertook, namely of supporting the complaint of a poor man to an officer who was alleged to be contemplating an official act of an oppressive kind towards him, can only be regarded as laudable. "Professional misconduct" includes conduct which would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable by Solicitors of good repute and competency. As is appropriate in the case of a profession which enjoys a large measure of autonomy in the control of its members, the emphasis is upon the view held of the conduct in question by the best opinion available within that body. Where control is exercised, as in the present case, by the Court, the accent should be placed rather upon the bearing which the alleged conduct has upon the general…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492