case details: Court: The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
Decided on: 06th May, 1988
Case no.: BCI. TR. CASE NO.. 10 of 1986
Judge: Shri C.L. Sachdeva and Shri N.K. Jain and Shri S.C. Chawla
Reported in: 16(3&4) 1989 IBR 5 20
Appellant: Bar Council Of Maharashtra
Respondent: Advocate (G.L.)
moral turpitude: Moral turpitude in general terms, is a conduct which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality or ethics as to shocking to moral conscience of community.
It denotes the individual charged with the specific conduct's depravity and wickedness of character or temperament. Every false statement or act made or done, by a person may not be moral turpitude, but it is if it reveals vileness or depravity in the performance of any private or societal obligation that a person owes to his fellowmen or to society in general.
background: The Respondent-Advocate was legal adviser to the Government of Maharashtra, i.e., M.S.R.T.C.
During that, he accepted some illegal gratification and was arrested, tried, convicted and punished under sec. 161 IPC, 1860 w.r.t sec. 5(1)(d) and sec. 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
His appeal was rejected by Bombay High Court and his application for Special Leave to Appeal was summarily rejected by the Supreme Court.
After serving the sentence, the Respondent continued to practice.
provisions involved: Section 161 IPC, 1860. (repealed)
Being or expecting to be a public servant, and taking a gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.
Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty –
(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct: —
(d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage;
Section 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Previous sanction necessary for prosecutions.-
(2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises whether the previous sanction as required under sub -section (1) should be given by the Central or State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority, which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed.
Sec. 24A(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961
No person shall be admitted as Advocate on a State Roll –
if he is convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude;
if he is convicted of an offence under the provisions of the Untouchablity (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
if he is dismissed and removed from employment or office under the state on any charge involving moral turpitude
facts: After about 8 years Bar Council of Maharashtra received an anonymous letter alleging that the respondent was involved with some malpractice in his previous years
