NAIK, J. :- These four cases arise out of three petitions lodged by one Sir Mohammed Yusuf and his son, Abdul Rahman against two practicing lawyers, D and S for taking action against them for professional misconduct. Out of these three petitions, two were filed by Sir Mohammed Yusuf, one against D in his capacity as a solicitor and the other against him as an advocate and also against S as an advocate. The third petition was filed by Abdul Rahman against D as a solicitor complaining that the latter was responsible for filing false proceedings under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act against him and pursuing them with a view to deter him from claiming the amount, that D had retained and for which he failed to render accounts to him. The two petitions filed by Sir Mohammed Yusuf and Abdul Rahman against D as a solicitor were referred to a committee of the Incorporated Law Society. The latter submitted a report exonerating D from the charges levelled against him. The learned Chief Justice was not satisfied with the report and therefore, referred the matter to Shelat, J. for further investigation and report. After a full enquiry into the matter. Shelat, J. came to the conclusion that D had retained a sum of Rs. 3,10,791-2-0 (which will hereinafter referred to as a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs and odd) and failed to render account in respect of the same to his client, Sir Mohammed Yusuf. He, however, found that the charge levelled by Abdul Rahman in respect of the evacuee proceedings was not established. The complaint made against D and S as advocates was referred to the Bar Council. This complaint was comprehensive and also included the charge regarding the evacuee proceedings. The matter was referred to a tribunal of the Bar Council and the tribunal took the view that all the charges were established against both the advocates. After the report of the Bar Council was received, the learned Chief Justice has referred the matter to this Division Bench for a final decision. On the basis of the report submitted by Shelat, J., the Advocate General of Maharashtra has filed a petition, which is Disciplinary No. 1 of 1961 against D under Rule 72 of the Original Side Rules. That petition also has been referred by the learned Chief Justice to us for a final decision. It will be appropriate to dispose of all these matters by a common judgement, in view of the fact that they involve common questions of fact and law. (After proceeding with the facts of the case (Paras 2 to 7) his Lordship observed.)

2-7Before coming to grips with the principal points in dispute, we will dispose of one or two incidental questions that were urged at the very outset before us.

8. Rules 64 to 74 in Chapter IV of the Original Side Rules have been recast and new Rules have been substituted in their place. These new Rules came into force in January 1960. Shelat, J. had submitted his report before that date and the learned Chief Justice had given his directions to the Advocate General for filing the petition under Rule 72 of the Rules also before that date. Under the old Rules, if the attorney against whom a complaint is made also happened to be advocate, then there would be a double enquiry. First, an enquiry by the Incorporated Law Society in his capacity as an attorney and the second enquiry by the Bar Council in his capacity as an advocate. That is exactly what has happened in the present case. The enquiries in some cases may be protracted, as has happened in the present case. Realising that considerable waste of time would be involved in two proceedings, (as is the case here) each of which has been a prolonged affair, the Rules in Chapter IV have been overhauled and the procedure has now been simplified. The new Rules prescribe that in a case where an attorney also happens to be an advocate, the complaint will be straightway be referred to the Bar Council and the Bar Council will submit its report under S. 12 of the Bar Councils Act. Thereafter, the High Cou