Judgment

AYYANGAR, J.: This appeal has been filed by special leave of this Court against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the appellant who is an Advocate was held guilty of professional misconduct and had held suspended from practice for five years.

2. The facts relating to the misconduct charged were briefly these : The three respondents before us and one other - Kagga Veeraiah-were plaintiffs in O. S. 432 of 1951 on the file of District Munsiff, Guntur in which a claim was made for possession of certain lands. The appellant was the Advocate for these plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and an appeal was filed therefrom to the Subordinate Judge, Guntur, and pending the disposal of the appeal there was a direction by the Court that the crops standing on the suit-land be sold and the proceeds deposited into Court. In pursuance of this order a sum of about Rs. 1,600/- was deposited into Court on December 19, 1951. The appeal by the plaintiffs was allowed by the Subordinate Judge. The unsuccessful defendants preferred a second appeal to the High Court, but meanwhile the plaintiffs made an application for withdrawing the amount deposited in Court. By virtue of interim orders passed by the Court they were granted liberty to withdraw the sum pending disposal of the second appeal in the High Curt filed by the defendants on furnishing security of immovable property. The security was furnished and the withdrawal was ordered. A cheque petition E. A. 250 of 1952 was accordingly filed which was allowed and thereafter a cheque was issued in favour of the Advocate-the appellant before us-for Rs. 1,452/4-, this being the sum remaining to the credit of the plaintiffs after deduction of poundage etc. it was admitted that this cheque was cashed by the appellant on April 23, 1953. The appellant did not dispute that he cashed this cheque on behalf of his clients or that the latter were entitled to be paid this sum and the charge of professional misconduct against the appellant was that the Advocate had not made this payment in spite of demands but that on the other hand he falsely claimed to have paid them this sum.

3. To resume the narative of the matters leading to these proceedings, the second appeal before the High Court was disposed of in August, 1955 and by the judgment of that Court the appeal was allowed and the plaintiff s suit dismissed. The plaintiffs had therefore to refund the sum of the defendants in the suit. On February 8, 1956 the plaintiffs made a written demand on the appellant for the sum complaining that the cheque had been cashed by him but that its proceeds had not been paid over. On April 14, 1956 the appellant replied to this notice claiming to have paid over the sum to them on their passing a receipt and stating that the receipt happened to be in the bundle of case-papers which had been returned to them.

4. But ever before the receipt of this reply the three respondents before us filed a complaint under Ss 12 and 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act alleging the non-payment of the money and charging the Advocate with professional misconduct in respect of it, and praying for an enquiry into his conduct. The appellant was an Advocate and hence the complaint was treated as one under S. 10 (2) of the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926. The explanation of the Advocate was called for and thereafter the District Judge, Guntur was directed to hold an inquiry into the allegations of professional misconduct against the appellant and forward his report to the High Court. An elaborate inquiry was thereafter held by the learned District Judge who, after considering the evidence, submitted a report recording his conclusion "that the appellant s case was not unbelievable" and that on that ground he was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The matter then came up before the High Court for consideration on this report. Some point appears to have been made before the Court that certain material witnesses had