Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous No.1866-C of 1986, heard on 3rd March, 1987.
---S. 59--Tout--Anti-tout Committee of High Court Bar Association making report against respondent and recommending that his entry in High Court as well as District Court might be barred as he was acting as tout--Respondent claiming to be working as a Clerk with an Advocates and producing a writing signed by a number of Advocates about good conduct--None of Advocates signing said writing appeared in defence excepting one signatory who had been disbelieved by Inquiry Officer--Even Advocate with whom respondent claimed to be working as a Clerk not appearing in his defence--Resolution passed by High Court Bar Association sand Report of Inquiry Officer constituting ample evidence that respondent habitually acted as a tout--Name of respondent ordered to be included in list of touts to be circulated and his entry in premises of High Court and District Courts barred.
Muhammad Bashir Khan for Petitioner.
Respondents in person.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1987.
Anti-tout Committee of the High Court Bar Association, Multan Bench, Multan, made report on 27th February, 1984, that Jamshed and Abdul Ghafoor, respondents herein were acting as touts and their presence in the High Court premises as well as the District Courts premises need be barred. On the basis of this report, Bar Association in its general meeting held on 6th March, 1984, passed unanimous resolution against the respondents and sent a reference to this Court for declaring them as touts, whereupon District and Sessions Judge, Multan vide letter No.2148/G/Genl, dated 7th March, 1984 was asked to hold an indiscreet inquiry in the matter as enjoined by section 59 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils, Act XXXV of 1973, and submit a report to this Court. The learned District & Sessions Judge, Multan, after hearing the witnesses and respondents submitted his report to this Court on 23rd December, 1984, wherein he has concluded that Jamshed respondent was acting as a tout anti his presence in the High Court premises as well as the District Courts premises need be barred. As for Abdul Ghafoor, he recommended that till his appeal filed by him against his conviction in a corruption case is disposed of, his working as Clerk with an Advocate was not proper. On receipt of this report, notices were issued to both the respondents to appear and explain their position.
2. The respondents have put in their written reply controverting the allegation. I have also heard both of them today, besides President Bar Association, High Court Multan Jamshad, respondent, stated that he is presently working as Clerk with Hassan Mahmood Sial, Advocate, and that a number of lawyers have testified to his good conduct vide a writing Mark 'A' produced in Court today. He further submits that he has been made a scapegoat by Khadim Nadeem, Advocate, who is his brother-in-law and with whom he had developed family dispute. It is noteworthy that Hassan Mahmood Sial, Advocate, with whom the respondent claims to be working as Clerk has not appeared in his defence before the Inquiry Officer. Likewise none from the signatories of statement Mark 'A' excepting Malik Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate, who has been disbelieved by the Inquiry Officer, appeared in his defence. Therefore, writing Mark 'A' is of no value. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case I find that the resolution passed by the High Court Bar Association on 6-3-1984 and report of the inquiry officer constitute ample evidence of general repute against Jamshad respondent and I feel satisfied that he (Jamshad) habitually acts as tout. Consequently, I hereby order that his name be included in the list of touts and be published accordingly. Copy of this list be circulated to all the Subordinate Courts. I further order that he shall be debarred from entering the premises of both High Court as well as, the District Courts, Multan.
3. As for Abdul Ghafoor respondent, I agree with the President Bar Association who proposes that no order may be passed against him as he is contemplating action against him at his level as suggested in the report of District & Sessions Judge, Multan. This matter stands concluded accordingly.
M. Y. H. /L-5/L. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer