IMPORTANT POINT
In cases of misconduct or allegations of any guilt against any person involving his indictment or infliction of punishment the evidence adduced should be of such a character and intrinsic value which may not admit any element of a reasonable doubt about alleged misconduct or guilt.

JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-The appellant who is an advocate has preferred this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act against the order dated March 28, 1992 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in BCI/TR Case No. 100 of 1990 suspending the appellant on the roll of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for a period of two years with a further direction to pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- as costs to the complainant-respondent No. 1 herein in exercise of its powers under Section 38(3)(c) read with Section 38 as well as Section 43(B) of the Advocates Act, 1981. The said appellant has also filed the Special Leave Petition referred to above against the order dated October 18, 1992 dismissing the review petition filed by the appellant against the said order dated March 28, 1992.

2. This appeal was heard and disposed of by us on March 21, 1996 by passing the following order :

"We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent-original complainant at some length. For reasons which we will state hereafter, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Bar Council of India holding the appellant guilty of misconduct. In view of our decision to set aside the view taken by the Bar Council of India against the appellant the Special Leave Petition which arises out of the rejection of the review application does not survive. Both the matters will, therefore, stand disposed of accordingly. We, however, make no order as to costs."

We, therefore, set out the following reasons in support of our said order dated March 21, 1996.

3. Before we proceed to give reasons in support of our referred to above allowing the appeal. It would be appropriate to briefly narrate the facts :

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, the original complainant/respondent No. 1 herein had instituted a money suit in the Bombay City Civil Court against one Smt. Virgillia D Souza for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- due under a bill of exchange. The respondent No. 1 was represented by Advocate Mr. Mirchandani since deceased) in the said suit. An ex-parte decree was passed on December 14, 1984 in favour of the respondent No. 1 and against the defendant Mrs. Virgillia D Souza. The appellant who is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Maharashtra since 1981 and mainly practising in Co-operative Courts was introduced with the mother of respondent No. 1 in August, 1986 by one Mrs. Deshpande, advocate. The respondent No. 1 alongwith her mother are said to have met the appellant in the City Civil Court. Bombay when the appellant was required to identify the respondent No. 1 in the execution proceedings of the ex-parte decree obtained on December 14, 1984 in which the moveables belonging to Mrs. D Souza were attached. It is said that said Mrs. D Souza obtained the address of the appellant from the Bailiff working in the Office of the Sherif of Bombay, approached the appellant offering to pay the decretal amount by instalments. According to the appellant a meeting was held in his office on September 24, 1986 in the presence of the respondent No. 1, her mother and said Mrs. D Souza wherein the parties reached to an agreement for payment of the decretal amount by instalments and a sum of Rs. 500/- was paid towards the decretal amount, to the appellant. The appellant s further case is that in pursuance of the agreement to pay the decretal amount by instalments the respondent No. 1 requested the Sherif of Bombay to remove the Watchman from the property of Mrs. D Souza but the attachment may be continued. According to the appellant the receipt of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 500/- and a further payment of Rs.1500/- paid by Mrs. D Souza were recorded in the execution proceedings which were signed by the respondent No. 1 on being identified by the appellant. On November 27, 1986 a further sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid by Mrs. D Souza towards the decretal amount. The receipt of which was again recorded in the execution proceedings.

4. Thereafter Mrs. D So