IMPORTANT POINT
When the matter related to a charge of professional misconduct which is quasi-criminal in nature requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt, it was not advisable for the Disciplinary Committee to base its conclusion purely on the basis of its own comparison of the hand writing without the assistance of a hand writing expert.

JUDGMENT

S.C. Agrawal, J.-This appeal, filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), is directed against the judgment of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (hereinafter referred to as the Disciplinary Committee ) dated March, 25, 1984 in B.C.I. Tr. Case No. 12 of 1982 whereby the Disciplinary Committee has found the appellant guilty of serious professional mis-conduct and has imposed the punishment of suspension from practice for a period of one year.

2. The appellant has been practising as an advocate at Ghaziabad and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. He was appearing for the decree holder in Execution Case No. 55 of 1974 M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand v. Shri Ram Contractor in the Court of Civil Judge, Ghaziabad. A complaint was received by the U.P. State Bar Council from one, Rajendra Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the complainant), a partner of the firm M/s. Atma Ram Nanak Chand, on August 1, 1979. In the said complaint the complainant has made the following allegations against the appellant :

(1) The appellant had colluded with the judgment debtor and had realised Rs. 1,600/- from him out of which the sum of Rs. 1,500/- was withheld by the appellant with himself and he did not pay it to the decree holder for a period of eight months inspite of repeated requests and in order to harass the decree holder, instead of handing over the same personally to him, he deposited the said amount in Court on May 2, 1978. The balance amount of Rs. 100/- was taken by him as fee from the judgment debtor to enable him to get time from the High Court for procuring stay order in the execution proceedings.

(2) The appellant received Rs. 245/- from the judgment debtor for getting some other counsel engaged to get the execution proceedings stayed and to see that the auction of judgment debtor s property was not approved by the court. The appellant got Shri Mahesh Prasad Tyagi, Advocate enanged from the side of the judgment debtor and charged Rs. 110/- for the purpose and that the execution of the decree was delayed due to careless handling of the case by the appellant since no permission for bidding at auction from the court was obtained deliberately in order to leave a lacuna for delaying the execution and that Shri M.P. Tyagi, Advocate, taking advantage of the said lacuna, filed objections under Order 21 Rule 72 C.P.C. for cancellation of the auction.

(3) The appellant had collected from the judgment debtor a further sum of Rs. 450/- on account of fees and expenses for getting some counsel engaged at Allahabad to get the execution proceeding stayed and for the purpose he had given a letter dated April 5, 1978 to the judgment debtor Shri Ram for Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate at Allahabad and that Shri Ram instead of going to Allahabad with the aforesaid letter sent a reply paid letter to Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate making enquiries about the stay but a reply came from the clerk of Shri V.K. Gupta, Advocate on April 14, 1978 that no case of his had been referred to him from the appellant.

(4) The appellant, as counsel for the complainant s firm, had filed Suit No. 10 of 1977 against Pradhan Shri Ramnath Singh in the court of Munsif (Judge, Small Causes Court, Ghaziabad) with uttar carelessness with the result that their new counsel had to take back the plaint on April 26, 1978 to file it in the proper court, namely, the Court of Civil Judge (Judge, Small Causes Court), Ghaziabad.

(5) The appellant was indulging in money lending business at very high rate of interest and thus mis-conducting himself as an advocate and had advanced loan to one Sunderlal of Ghaziabad.

3. A copy of the said complaint was sent to the appellant by the State Bar Council for his explanation. The appellant submitted his reply to the complaint on December 12, 1979 wherein he denied all the allegations contained in the