Manohar Pershad, J.

[1] Through a letter dated 1-7-1956, the District and Session Judge, Bidar, reported to the High Court, Hyderabad, that Shri Mahbub Ali, an advocate, having filed his vakalatnama on be-half of 13 accused in Murder Case No. 10/8/55, State v. Dev Rao and Ors. has failed to attend the Court on the dates of hearing, viz., 16-6-55 and 1-7-55; that he sent a telegram expressing his inability to attend the Court; that the case had to be adjourned; that the accused had informed that they had already paid their fees to the advocate and that the file also is with the advocate. The District and Sessions Judge requested that the High Court may call for an explanation of the advocate and take necessary action against him. A notice was issued to the advocate by the High Court calling on him to submit his explanation. The advocate, it appears filed a counter and later an affidavit. It is stated in the counter that one Shri Seethal Pershad was the principal lawyer on behalf of the accused and that he (Mahboob Ali) was engaged by him to plead in the case on daily fee basis and that he could not attend the Court on the aforesaid dates of hearing as he was not paid his travelling and boarding expenses. Through a second letter dated 22-8-1955 the District and Sessions Judge while forwarding the application of the advocate concerned to the- High Court informed that the advocate was regularly appearing on the dates of hearing of the case. But through a third letter dated 26-8-55 the District and Sessions Judge wrote again that the advocates for the accused, viz., (1) Shri Mahbub Ali (2) Shri Seethal Pershad and (3) Shri Krishna failed to attend the Court that day to plead for the accused in their defence. The matter was placed before a Bench consisting of the former Chief Justice Shri Schripat Rau Palnitkar, Mr. Justice Ansari and Mr. Justice Jagan Mohan Reddy. The learned Judges made the following observation:

Perused the record. Prima facie a case has been made out against the advocate that in a murder case he absented himself without sufficient cause. The accused have stated that they paid him full fees and that they could not engage another lawyer as they had no money to pay. They also stated that the file was with the lawyer. The advocate denied the allegations. Send a copy of the letter of the Sessions Judge and also a copy of the statement of the advocate to the Bar Council for enquiry and for report which may be submitted within two months.

The matter was accordingly referred to the Tribunal of the erstwhile Hyderabad Bar Council under Section 10(2) of the Indian Bar Council Act for enquiry and report. The Tribunal after recording the evidence and perusing the documents gave a finding that the charge that the advocate was guilty of professional misconduct had not been proved. The matter is before us under Section 12(3) oil the Bar Council Act.

[2] The question to be determined is whether Shri Mahbub Ali, advocate, is guilty of misconduct. We may at the outset point out that an advocate engaged- in a case owes duty not only to his client but also to the Court The practice, extent and measure of such duty and the circumstances in which the breach would constitute misconduct are different questions. No hard and fast rule can be laid down and it depends on the circumstances of each case. As is stated above the duties of the advocate are two fold. The advocate by his obligation is bound to discharge his duties to his client with the strictest fidelity and is answer able to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Court for dereliction of duty. The relation involves' the highest personal trust and confidence so much so that it cannot be delegated without' consent. A pleader is more than a mere agent or servant of his client. He is also an officer] of the Court and as such he owes the duty of good faith and honourable dealing with the Court before which he practices his profession. 1 Three fundamental questions emerge for