Civil Appeal No 1922 of 1979
From the Judgment and order dated 7 5 1979 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in DC Appeal No 1978
Appellant ill Person and section section Khanduja for the Appellant
The order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J
The Appellant a fledging in the legal profession has been punished by the Tribunal of the Bar Council for eating the forbidden fruit of dubious professional conduct by improperly certifying the solvency of a surety for an accused person his client
suspension from practice for one month is the punishment awarded by the trial tribunal and in appeal
Counsel for the appellant Shri Khanduja has pleaded for an admonitory sentence by the Court ex misericordium
Of course the punitive pharmacopoeia of the Advocates Act in Section 35 does permit reprimand provided the ends of public justice are met by this leniency
After all public professions which enjoy a monopoly of public audience have a statutorily enforced social accountability for purity probity and people conscious service
In our Republic Article 191 g vests a fundamental right to practise any profession only subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the general public vide article 196
The law forbids the members of the legal or other like professions from converting themselves into a conspiracy against the laity and all regulations necessary for ensuring a people oriented bar without exploitation potential are permissible nay necessary
Rule 10 chapter 2 part six of the Rules of Bar Council of India for Professional Misconduct framed for disciplinary purposes is stated to have been violated by the appellant for which dispensatory punishment has been meted out
The factual setting gives an insight into the degree of deviance of the delinquent appellant
Punishment must be geared to a social goal at once deterrent and reformatory
In the present case the appellant is charged with certifying the solvency of a surety in a bailable offence
Obviously the accused who was the client of the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail because the offence for Which he was in custody was admittedly bailable
Even so it is a common phenomenon in our country that bail has too often become a bogey and an instrument of unjust incarceration
There are 207 some magistrates who are never satisfied about the solvency of sureties except when the property of the surety is within their jurisdiction and Revenue officers have attested their worth
This harasses the poor and leads to corruption as pointed out by this Court in Moti Ram s case
It may therefore be quite on the cards that some sympathetic lawyer who appears for an indigent accused may commiserate and enquire whether the surety is solvent
If he is satisfied on sure basis that the surety is sufficiently solvent then he may salvage the freedom of the accused by certifying the solvency of which he has satisfied himself
It is also possible that the detainee is a close relation or close friend or a poor servant of his
In that capacity not as a lawyer he may know the surety and his solvency or may offer himself as a surety
If a lawyer s father or mother is arrested and the Court orders release on bail it is quite conceivable and perhaps legitimate if the son appears for his parent and also stands surety
He violates the rule all the same
The degree of culpability in a lawyer violating Rule 10 chapter 2 part six depends on the total circumstances and the social milieu
This Court has held taking cognizance of the harassment flowing from sureties being insisted upon before a person is enlarged or bailed out that the Court has the jurisdiction to release on his own bond without the necessity of a surety
The question therefore is whether the circumstances of the offence and offender are venal or venial
The Rule with which we are concerned is a wholesome one in the sense that lawyers should not misuse their role for making extra perquisites by standing surety for their clients or certifying the solvency of such sureties
That is a bolt on the bar an exploitative stain on the profession
At the same time the punishment is flexible in the sense that where the situation cries for the help of the lawyer in favour of a client who is languishing in jail because his surety is being unreasonably rejected we may not frown upon a lawyer who helps out the person not by false pretences but on the strength of factual certitude and proven inability to substantiate solvency
In the present case the circumstances are amelioratary and hardly warrant condign Punishment
The lawyer is young the offence is not tainted with turpitude and the surety whose solvency be certified was found to be good
The most that may be justified is perhaps a public reprimand since censure has a better deterrent value on the errant brethren in the 208 profession in some situations than a suspension for a month from professional practice which may pass unnoticed in the crowd of lawyers and the delinquent himself may be plying his business except for appearance in Court
In suitable cases of course even severity of suspension or disbarment may be justified
This Court should not interfere ordinarily with a punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal except where strong circumstances involving principle are present
In our vast country of illiterate litigants and sophisticated litigation the legal position must be so explained as to harmonise the interests of the indigents who are marched into Court and the professional probity of the Bar which is an extended instrument of justice
We hold that public admonition is an appropriate sentence in the present case and proceed to administer it in open court to the appellant  We hereby reprimand him and direct that he shall not violate the norms of professional conduct and shall uphold the purity and probity of the profession generally and in particular as spelt out in the rules framed by the Bar Council of India
We condone his deviance this time and warn him that he shall not violate again
The appeal is to this extent allowed and the sentence of reprimand substituted for the sentence of suspension
PBR Appeal allowed in part


Summary:
Rule 10 Chapter II Part 6 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India for professional mis conduct provides that an advocate shall not stand a surety or certify the soundness of a surety for his client required for the purposes of any legal proceedings
The appellant a practising advocate was suspended for one month by the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Bar Council of India on the ground that in violation of the rules he had certified the solvency of a surety in a bailable offence in which the accused was his client
The appellate body dismissed his appeal
On the question whether a reprimand would meet the ends of justice Allowing the appeal in part  HELD 1 Section 35 of the Advocates Act permits reprimand provided the ends of public justice are met by this leniency
Ordinarily this Court does not interfere with a punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal except where strong circumstances involving principle are present
Censure has a better deterrent value on the errant brethren in the profession in some situations than suspension for a month from professional practice
In the present case the lawyer was young the offence was not tainted with turpitude and the surety whose solvency he certified was found to be good
These circumstances are amelioratory and hardly warrant codign punishment
Public admonition is an appropriate sentence in the present case
p Public professions which enjoy a monopoly of public audience have statutorily enforced social accountability for purity probity and people conscious service
In our country bail has become a logy and an instrument of unjust incarceration
This harasses the poor and leads to corruption
A smart lawyer who appears for an indigent accused may commiserate and enquire whether the surety is solvent
If he is satisfied that the surety is sufficiently solvent he may certify the solvency of the surety
In some cases the detainee may be a close relation or close friend or a poor servant of his
In that capacity not as a lawyer he may know the surety and his solvency or may offer himself as a surety
In such cases he violates the rule all the same
The degree of culpability in such cases depends on the total circumstances and the social milieu
The rule under consideration is a wholesome one in the sense that lawyers should not misuse their role for making extra perquisites by standing surety for their clients or certifying the solvency of such sureties
The Court may not 206 frown upon a lawyer who helps out the person not by false pretences but on the strength of factual certitude and proven inability to substantiate solvency
The Court reprimanded the appellant and directed that he shall not violate the norm of professional conduct and shall uphold the purity and probity of the profession generally