ORDER :

Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.

Delay condoned.

1. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh is the appellant. Challenge is to the order dated 17th March, 2012 passed by s the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 31 of 2010 in and by which the Bar Council of India set aside the order of punishment of the appellant dated 5th December, 2009, imposed on respondent No. 1 herein who is a practising Advocate in the State of Andhra Pradesh for certain alleged misconduct.

2. The appellant passed its order against the respondent No. 1 on 5th December, 2009 in Complaint Case No. 34 of 2008 holding that the first respondent committed the misconduct of violating the terms and conditions of his appointment as Notary in attesting the documents and misused his position as a Notary and failed to follow the provisions of the Notaries Act and the Indian Stamp Act. Reliance was placed upon Exhibits C3 to C6 and D1 to D2 in support of its conclusion about the guilt of respondent No. 1. As a matter of fact, the above documents C1 to C2, photocopy of which are placed before us discloses that respondent No. 1 had attested blank stamp papers of the value of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 20/- of three different dates namely, 8th March, 2007, 16th August, 2007 and 27th October, 2007 by affixing the seal of Notary and as an Advocate. The above documents were stated to have been forwarded to the appellant by the Registrar General of the High Court based on a complaint made by one, Ramchandra Rao, a graduate and a private employee in Hyderabad who brought to the notice of the High Court about the professional misconduct of respondent No. 1 herein.

3. In its detailed order dated 5th December, 2009 the appellant held that the conduct of the first respondent in having abused his position as a Notary by attesting blank stamp papers and by affixing signature along with the rubber stamp impression were in violation of the provisions of the Notaries Act in particular Section 35 of the Advocates Act. Though respondent No. 1 contended that his role as a Notary is different from his status as an Advocate, the said stand of respondent No. 1 was rightly rejected by the appellant.

4. Unfortunately, by the impugned order, the Bar Council of India without appreciating the legal position under the Notaries Act as well as the Advocates Act, in a superficial manner, proceeded to hold that violation of the provisions of the Stamp Act and Notaries Act will have no impact on the conduct of respondent No. 1 vis-a-vis his status as an Advocate. What was omitted to be noted by the Bar Council of India was that the very recognition of the respondent No. 1 as a Notary under the provisions of the Notaries Act was by virtue of his status as an Advocate. The status of a person as an Advocate was sine qua non to be recognized as a Notary. Section 2(c) defines `legal professional' to mean an advocate entered in any roll under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Under Section 3 of the said Act, the Central and the State Governments for the whole or any part of India or for the whole or any part of the State respectively is empowered to appoint a Notary, any legal professional or other persons who possess such qualification as may be prescribed. In such circumstances, when the first respondent by virtue of his status as an Advocate was appointed as a Notary, certainly he cannot be heard to state that his role as a Notary should be delinked from his status as an Advocate and that for whatever violation he committed in his capacity as a Notary no action can be taken against him by the appellant, namely, the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, we are not in a position to sustain the reasoning of the Bar Council of India in setting aside the order of punishment imposed by the appellant in its order dated 5th December, 2009 debarring the first respondent from practising as an Advocate.

5. In this context, we also wish to refer to the Three Judge Bench decision of th