ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and Bar Council of India [for short, "B.C.I."].

2. By the impugned order, B.C.I. recorded a finding that the appellant had committed professional misconduct and suspended him from practising as an advocate before any court or authority in India for a period of five years. While concluding the disciplinary proceeding cost of Rupees five thousand has been awarded against the appellant. It was directed that, in case the cost awarded is not paid within a period of one month, the period of suspension shall be extended for a further period of six months.

3. The sole respondent filed a complaint in the year 1984 before the Bar Council of Maharashtra [for short, "the State Bar Council"] for taking disciplinary action against the appellant as, according to the complainant, appellant had committed professional misconduct. As the complaint could not be disposed of within the period of one year, as required under law, the same was transferred to the B.C.I. In view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to state respective cases of the parties. Suffice it to say that, on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Disciplinary Committee of the B.C.I.:

"1. Whether on 8th June, 1977, the respondent gave a threat to the petitioner as alleged? OPC

2. Whether the respondent is guilty of preparing and drafting documents as alleged in Part No.7 of the complainant to the detriment of the complainant and her family members? OPC

3. Whether the respondent accepted the briefs from persons whose interest was in clash to the interest of the complainant and her family member and thereby caused loss of the damage to the complainant as alleged?

4. Whether the respondent issued a false certificate regarding marketability of title with respect to the disputed property with a view to take illegal gains and thereby committed professional misconduct as alleged? OPC

5. Whether the Respondent continued the said certificate to be used for illegal gains despite notice, if so to what effect? OPC

6. Whether the respondent in collusion with Mr. Vora, the Architect and builder Mr. B.S. Jain committed illegal acts as alleged and as a result made personal gains and committed profession misconduct? OPC

7. Whether the respondent helped the builder and the Architect in their unauthorised acts to cross wrongful acts to the complainant as alleged? OPC 8. Whether the respondent is guilty of having committed professional or other misconduct as alleged vis a vis the complainant and her family members on the one hand and the Architect and the builder on the other hand? OPC"

4. The impugned order runs into 23 pages. Upto the middle of Page 10, the Committee has referred to cases of the parties; from middle of Page 10 to middle of Page 11, issues have been mentioned; from middle of Page 11 to the top of Page 22, the Committee has referred to the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced on behalf of the parties without discussing the same and recording any finding whatsoever in relation to the veracity or otherwise of the evidence; and thereafter disposed of the proceeding which may be usefully quoted hereunder:

"We have gone through the records. The issues were framed on 18-8-1990. Issue No. 1 relates to a threat given by the respondent to the complainant on 8-6-1977. This issue is not related to the professional misconduct and in this regard the complainant has not submitted any documentary evidence to prove her stand.

As far as the issue No. 2 is concerned, this is a very important issue. The complainant has submitted document in support of her contention and proved the issue. This fact cannot be denied by oral version, as there is documentary record.

As far as the issue No. 3 is concerned, this is also proved by the complainant by her evidence. Issue No. 4 relates to the certificate issued by the respondent. This has also been proved by the complainant by documentary pro