Bangladesh Bar Council (Tribunal No IV)
Complaint Case No 8/2001
Mr Md Ibrahim Miah ... ... Complainant
Mr Md Mozahidul Islam @ MM Islam,
Advocate, Dhaka Opposite party.
Before Mr. Mr Md Anisur Rahman Khan ... Chairman, Mr Syed Ahmed ... Member and Mr Abul Kalam Azad ... Member.
Date of judgement: 17-07-2003.

Background
Md Anisur Rahman Khan, Chairman: The allegations of the complainant in brief are: that the Opposite Party (OP) is an Advocate enrolled by the Bangladesh Bar Council. By suppressing the fact that he is an advocate the OP styling himself as the former President/ Secretary of Dhaka Nodibondor Cinnomul Jubo Kalyan Punurbashan Sanirbhar Bohumukhi Samabay Samity Ltd filed complaint case No 3056/1997 u/s 467/468/471/506/419/380/109 of the Penal Code against the complainant and 29 others in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka on 3.9.97. It is further alleged that 3 / 4 days after filing of the complaint case the OP along with some others met the complainant & informed him that there had been a criminal case against him & he might be imprisoned & would loose his job and thereby demanded payment of the Tk 20,00,000/- (Taka twenty lac) from the complainant for dropping the criminal case. In default of payment of the money the OP threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The complainant was taken aback at such behavior of the OP & on enquiry came to learn that the OP as complainant filed the above criminal case.

It is stated in the petition of complaint that the ld. CMM referred the complaint to OC Sutrapur PS Dhaka for investigation & report. The OC Sutrapur PS on investigation found the allegation as false & submitted his report accordingly. The OP advocate thereafter submitted a Narazi petition against the enquiry report upon which the ld CMM passed an order, for judicial enquiry and sent the case record to the court of Mr NC Das, Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka. On the failure of the OP to produce evidence his complaint was rejected u/s 2003 CrPC.

It is further alleged that the OP Advocate by suppressing the fact of filing the above criminal case against the complaint & some others filed another petition of complaint in the Court of CMM Dhaka against the complainant & 30 others. The complaint being numbered as petition case No 4066/99 u/s 109/467/468/471/506/419/380/420/385/423/424 of the Penal Code. The police on investigation submitted final report in the case. The OP Advocate filed a Narazi Petition in vain.

It is further alleged that the OP Advocate did not stop in filing false cases against the complainant and again filed Petition case No 4933/1999 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Dhaka u/s109/467/379/143/506/382/284/420/406/372/373/476/341 of the Penal Code against the complainant & 67 ors. This case also met the same fate as those of the earlier two. It is further alleged that the OP advocate did not stop and again demanded money from the complainant and on being refused, the OP advocate filed petition case No 473/2000 against the complainant & others u/s 144/341/342/352/323/506/307/374/325 of the Penal Code. The case was rejected for default. It is further alleged that the OP Advocate again field a false case against the complainant & as being Sutrapur PS case No 64 (3) 2000 u/s 379/426 of the Penal Code and gave threat to the complaint over phone.

Issues for determination
Upon the allegations stated above the present case was started against the OP Advocate. Now the points for enquiry & determination before us are:
i) Whether the OP filed false criminal cases against the complainant and
ii) Whether by filing such cases, the OP has been guilty of professional or other misconduct.

Deliberation
The OP Advocate though filed written reply to the complaint but ultimately did not turn up to contest the case. On 8-5-2003 the case was taken up for exparte disposal. The complainant Mr Ibrahim Miah deposed as PW-1. The OP did not cross examine the witness. The documents were marked as Exhibits-1 Series. After passing of the order on 17-7-2003at about 12-15 PM. the O.P. filed an application contending that he would contest the case. But the application of the O.P. was found by the Tribunal as a malafide one and the same was rejected. It is found from the order sheet that the O.P. took the allegations leveled against him very lightly and did not care to contest.

Now upon the allegations and evidence on record we are to see as to whether the O.P. advocate committed professional or other misconduct or not. The main allegations against the O.P. were that he demanded money illegally from the complainant amounting to Tk. 20,00,000/= (Taka twenty lac) only. Having failed to realise the sum the O.P. filed false criminal cases against the complainant and others one after another. Every person has a right to initiate civil or criminal case if he has a grievance. In this particular case we find that the complainant did not do anything which might have constituted personal grievance of the O.P. We have perused the petition of complaint and FIR marked Ext. 1 series and do not find anything personal that constituted a grievance of the O.P. The cases filed by him against the complainant fell to the ground i.e. the O.P. could not substantiate his allegation against the complainant.

It appears that the O.P filed the criminal case against the complainant styling himself as the former President/ Secretary of Dhaka Nodibondor Cinnomul Jubo Kalyan Punurbashan Sanirbhar Bohumukhi Samabay Samity Ltd. The O.P in his petition of complaint and in the FIR stated that the complainant tried to grab the lease property of the so-called Samity by creating forged documents. But the O.P could not substantiate his allegations of creating forged documents by the complainant.

The complainant's case was that the O.P filed false cases against him and others for illegal gratification of Tk 20,00,000/= and on being refused payment; the O.P filed the false cases. The complainant as P.W.-1 deposed in support of his allegation and his testimonies was corroborated by P.W-2 Md. Abdul Alim. The testimonies of the P.Ws went unchallenged. The O.P admitted filing of cases against the complainant though he denied demand of Tk 20,00,000=. In absence of cross examination of P.Ws and in absence of evidence adduced by the O.P Advocate we accept the case of the complainant and find that the O.P Advocate filed false cases one after another against the complainant and others being failure to get his illegal demand.

Decision
Now we are to see whether such a conduct of the O.P Advocate falls within the mischief of professional misconduct. Canons of Professional Conduct & Etiquette provide in details the conduct and duty of an 'Advocate to his clients, to the court and to the public in general. But it seems to us that the gentleman O.P has not gone through the provisions of the canons as aforesaid. The profession of law is a noble profession and a lawyer's duty is to uphold the dignity and honour of the profession. A lawyer should not do any act or thing which undermines the profession. It is not the duty of a lawyer to file-false cases against any person. Filing of the false cases by the O.P Advocate against the complainant though strictly do not come within the mischief of professional misconduct: as in those criminal cases the O.P Advocate was not engaged as a lawyer by any party, rather the O.P Advocate was himself a party to the criminal cases. But no prudent man not to speak of an Advocate has a right to file false cases against any member of the public for harassment or for illegal gains. In the present case it is proved that the O.P being an Advocate and a respectable citizen in the society filed false criminal cases against the complainant and others fully knowing well the consequences of filing false criminal cases. Filing of false criminal cases by an Advocate against an innocent definitely falls within the mischief of misconduct.

In the facts and circumstances and on evidence we find the O.P Advocate guilty of misconduct, which calls for punishment.

Hence, it is ordered that the O.P Advocate Mr. Md. Mozahidul Islam @ M.M. Islam be and is placed under suspension. He is debarred from practising Profession of law as an Advocate for a period of 5 (five) years from the date.