JUDGMENT

THAKKAR, J. :— A host of questions of seminal significance, not only for the Advocate who has been suspended from practising his profession for 3 years on the charge of having withdrawn a suit (as settled) without the instructions from his client, but also for the members of the legal prefession in general have arisen in this appeal (Appeal under section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961) :-

(1) Whether a charge apprising him specifically of the precise nature and character of the professional misconduct ascribed to him needs to be framed.

(2) Whether in the absence of an allegation or finding of dishonesty or mens rea a finding of guilt and a punishment of this nature can be inflicted on him?

(3) Whether the allegations and the finding of guilt require to be proved beyond reasonable doubt?

(4) Whether the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies?

(5) Whether an Advocate acting bona fide and in good faith on the basis of oral instructions given by some one purporting to act on behalf of his client, would be guilty of professional misconduct or of an unwise or imprudent act, or negligence simpliciter, or culpable negligence punishable as professional misconduct?

2. The suit was a suit fo