JUDGMENT

G. N. RAY, J.:- This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated June 30, 1990 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India under Section 36B of the Advocates Act, 1961 in BCI Tr. Case No. 127 of 1988 arising out of the complaint made before the Bar Council of Maharashtra in D. C. No. 22 of 1987. Shri Ramesh Chandra Vithaldas Sheth made a complaint on February 9, 1987 to the D. C. No. 21 of Bar Council of Maharashtra against the respondent Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta, an Advocate practising in Bombay inter alia alleging professional misconduct against the said advocate. It was alleged by the respondent complainant, that he carries on business of manufacturing at Jhalod and he owns a proprietary firm named as M/s. Ravi Dyechem Manufacturing Industries and M/s. Vithaldas Dye Stuff Manufacturing Company. The complainant was in need of financial accommodation and was in search of a reliable financier and one Mr. Balu Bhai Modi impressed the complainant that they would give financial accommodation on being satisfied about the documents of security. It was represented to the complainant that a firm of Solicitors run by the said Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta would examine the papers for the purpose of financing and the said Shri Devendra Bhai Mehta was also an investor. The complainant on such representation agreed to get financial loan through the said Balu Bhai Modi. The complainant alleged that an inspection of factory and other premises at Jhalod was made by Shri Balu Bhai and he was informed that the said properties were in excellent condition and the estimated value was Rs. 12 lakhs. He was also assured that since the properties were valuable and in excellent condition a lower rate of interest would be considered and he was also told that a loan up to Rs.7 lakhs would be advanced to him provided the complainant would pay a draft or cash at the rate of 5 and 1/2 on the advance of the amount of loan towards legal and other expenses. He was also informed that a meeting of the financiers would be held including Mr. Devendra Bhai Mehta who was one of such financiers. Thereafter a meeting was arranged at the residence of the said Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta and in such meeting Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta falsely represented to the complainant that he was an advocate of the firm of Solicitors M/ s. Dayalji and Deepchand and he worked only for the genuine financiers and he would look to the interests of the loan seekers. Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta also represented to the complainant that he was himself a member of the internal group of the financiers who would advance the loan and hence he was not only preparing the mortgage deed for the proposed loan but also scrutinising it for his own satisfaction. He also assured the complainant that once the mortgage deed was drafted by him the complainant would get loan ‘within ten days because thereafter only the formalities were required to be gone into. The said Shri Mehta induced the complainant to part with money for legal expenses and informed the complainant that out of 5 and 1/2 of the amount of loan required to be paid by the complainant by way of legal expenses, Shri Devendra Bhaishankar Mehta would keep 3 and 1/2 for the stamp duty avable to the Government and he also represented that the disbursement could be expedited only if the complainant would pay cash to Balulbhai Modi on April 10, 1986. Shri Devendra Mehta also promised that he would see that the loan proposal was passed in the internal group of meeting of the financiers of which he himself was one of the financiers and he would ensure that Shri Balu Bhai Modi would sanction the loan as early as possible. Thereafter Shri Devendra Mehta had inspected the documents and returned most of the original documents and assured the complainant that he would get loan in a few days. On April 10, 1986 the complainant went to the office of Shri Balu B. Modi and handed over to him a sum of Rs.