Judgment

S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. :- The appellant who is an Advocate in Bangalore practising since 1942 was proceeded against for professional misconduct on the basis of a complaint dated 7th November, 1986 lodged by the respondent, Mr. Edward Ani with the Karnataka State Bar Council (Bangalore) under Section 35 of the Advocates Act alleging that the appellant with whom a Will dated 1-7-1968 executed by his mother-in-law, Mrs. Mary Raymond was entrusted for safe custody against receipt dated 5th July, 1968 bearing serial No. 576 in his register of Wills (marked as Ex. P-l) refused to return that Will in spite of two letters dated 4-1-1982 and 15-4-1986 demanding the appellant to hand over the Will kept in his custody and that the appellant thereby has committed -professional misconduct.

2. The synoptical resumption of the case which has given rise to this appeal may be briefly stated :

One, Mr. N. E. Raymond and his wife, Mrs. Mary Raymond were the clients of the appellant. Mrs. Mary Raymond during her lifetime got her Will drafted by the appellant and entrusted the same after execution with the appellant in respect of which the appellant had given a receipt dated 5-7-1968 vide Ex. P.1. The fact that the Will has been deposited with the appellant is supported by an entry in the register of Wills maintained by the appellant. The executrix had appointed her husband as the executor. Her husband, N. E. Raymond died in the year 1974. Mrs. Mary Raymond changed her lawyer, the appellant herein and engaged one Mr. George DaCosta as her advocate. According to the respondent, who is none other than the son-in-law of Mrs. Mary Raymond and who claims to be the legal representative of her estate that when Mr. George DaCosta requested the appellant in 1978 to let him have his clients Will, the appellant denied having it. Thereafter, Mrs. Mary Raymond was obliged to make another Will prepared by Mr. George DaCosta on 24-6-78.

3. It is the case of the respondent that he wrote two letters to the appellant of which one dated 4th January, 1982 was sent on behalf of Mrs. Mary Raymond under Certificate of Posting from Manchester (U.K.) marked as Ex. P.6 and another letter dated 15th April. 1986 by himself under Registered Post with A/D marked as Ex. P.8. Both the letters were addressed to the appellant requesting him to return the Will dated 1-7-68. But the appellant did not reply to both the letters and kept conspicuous silence.

4. The second Will executed in 1978 was probated on 21-2-1984 after the death of Mrs. Mary Raymond on 29-10-1983.

5. On being aggrieved at the conduct of the appellant in not replying to his letters and returning the Will kept in his custody, the respondent filed a complaint dated 7-11-1986 before the Karnataka Bar Council. By a resolution No. 110 of 1987 on 12-7-1987, the State Council rejected that complaint holding that there was no prima facie case made out. The respondent preferred a revision before the Bar Council of India which by its order dated 20-11-1988 set aside the order of the State Bar Council and allowed the revision holding that there existed prima facie case of misconduct against the respondent (advocate) and remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Committee of the State Council.

6. Pursuant to the order of the Bar Council of India, the parties appeared before the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council. The appellant filed his reply on 3-7-1989 to which the respondent filed his rejoinder on 12-8-1989. The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council by its order dated 7-6-1990 again held that the respondent was not guilty of professional or other misconduct within the meaning of Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 as alleged by the appellant.

7. Again being dissatisfied with the said order of the Disciplinary Committee, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India which by its order dated 4-6-1993, disagreed with the findings of the State Bar Counc