THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA High Court

Decided On Sep-14-1996
Case Number D.C. APPEAL NO. 13 of 1991
Judge Shri.D.V. Patil, Chairman; Shri.TS.C. Chawala, Member; Shri S. Gopakumaran Nair, Member. JJ.
Reported in 1997(1)IBR271
Appellant A
Respondent R

Facts of the Case :

 This is, an appeal from the order of the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh dated 13-7-1991 in
C.C. No. 21/1990 by which the present' appellant was. found guilty of professional and other
misconduct and his name was struck off from the roll of Advocates maintained by the State
under Provisions of Section 35(3) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961.
 The allegations against the appellant were that Sri Radhakishan, S/o Shankar Singh, was the
owner of some houses which were submerged in Srisailam Project .
 The present appellant had come to be engaged on behalf of the said Radh'akdshan in O.P. No.
1788 of 1984 in which the order of compensation came to be passed.

 Ultimately a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,80,533.40 ps. came to be deposited by the Govt,
in Sub-Court, Gadwal. The amount of the compensation had been sent by the Court to the
Canara Bank, Mahaboobnagar Branch, to be deposited into the account of Radhakishan.

 Complainant claimed that her husband has been missing since 1985 and an advertisement to that
effect had been given in local newspapers by her brother-in-law.
 It is further claimed that the present respondent was requesting the appellant to help her and her
two sons in getting the amount withdrawn.
 Subsequently, the complainant, on enquiries, came to know that the said amount had been,
withdrawn from the Bank, on 28-6-1987, supposedly by her husband.
 Thereafter, the complainant went to the appellant and asked for .the return of the amount and on
his refusal sent a notice on 15-2-1990. The notice- came unserved. It is further claimed that all
but Rs. 80,533.40 ps. came to be returned to the complainant by the appellant.
 The appellant has denied the entire case of the complainant.
 He further denied that he forged any documents or withdrew any amount.
 On these counter allegations, the Committee of the State Bar Council proceeded to consider the
complaint. The complainant never presented herself or any other witness before the Committee.

 The Committee also suggested that it was necessary to hand over the matter for further
investigation to the nearest Magistrate or the Police Officer.
 We are unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Committee of the State Bar Council for
the simple reason that none of the allegations made by the complainant have been supported by
substantive evidence.
 Merely because an advertisement came to be published in a newspaper would not lead us to the
conclusion that the said Radhakishan was really missing. We have no witness before us who has
deposed to the fact as to under whose authority the said advertisement came to be published.
 We do not have either the original scripts of the advertisement or any one claiming to have
given the said, advertisement. Cuttings from newspaper items cannot be made the basis of
decisions dealing with lives of professionals.
 In the absence of any material whatsoever, the State Committee was not justified in drawing the
inferences about the existence of the newspaper advt, the comparison of thumb impressions and
the cheque was dubious, and of withholding the respondent's appearance before the committee
 without any factual support. Also the state bar coouncil committee framed no issues or charges
in this case.

Order of BCI Disciplinary Committee :

 In view of this discussion, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the D.C. of the State
Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the total lack of evidence in support of the
allegations, we are left with no other option than to allow the appeal and to set aside the
impugned order.
 In the result, D.C. Appeal No. 13/1991 filed by the appellant Advocate, Mahaboobnagar, is
allowed and the order dated 13-7-1991 passed by the D.C. of the State Bar Council of Andhra
Pradesh in C.C. No. 21/1990 removing the name of the appellant from the State Roll of
Advocates is hereby set aside. The appellant is hereby found not guilty. No order as to costs.