Honble MAJMUDAR, J.–The appellant, Harish Chander Singh, has brought in challenge the order passed by the members of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India holding him guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of two years from the date of the communication of the order. Said appeal is filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with Order 5 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966. This appeal was admitted to final hearing and in the meantime the operation of the order under appeal was stayed. Earlier in addition to Respondent S.N. Tripathi, President of the Bar Association, Akbarpur, one Syed Husain Ahmad was also joined as Respondent No.2. He was the codelinquent along with the appellant. He was also held guilty of professional misconduct on the complaint of the original complainant and was ordered to be reprimanded. His involvement along with the appellant was in connection with the very same transaction brought in challenge by the complainant against both these delinquents. However, said Syed Hussain Ahmad did not challenge the finding of the Disciplinary Committee against him and the sentence imposed against him. At the request of the appellant, therefore, he was permitted to be deleted as second respondent in this appeal. Consequently the sole respondent who has remained in the arena of contest is the president of the Bar Association who filed the complaint before the State Bar Council on behalf of the original complainant.

(2). In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant it is necessary to note a few introductory facts.

(3). One Daya Ram, the original complainant before the State Bar Council, filed a complaint against the appellant as well as aforesaid co-delinquent Syed Hussain Ahmad, both of whom at the relevant time were practicing advocates at Akbarpur in Ferozabad District of Uttar Pradesh. In the complaint it was alleged against the delinquents that he had engaged the appellant as his counsel in a case pending before Consolidation Officer, Akbarpur between the complainant and one Bisai. Subsequently he had engaged one Tarakant Tripathi as his counsel. According to the complainant the said case was fixed before the Consolidation Officer for 17th January, 1972 and thereafter it was adjourned to 7th February, 1972. The appe- llant who was engaged as his counsel is the resident of Village Jamnipur. The land in connection with consolidation proceedings were pending wherein the appellant was engaged by the complainant to represent him, was situated in the same village. The consolidation proceedings then were further adjourned to 21st February, 1972. In the meanwhile, in the evening of 17th January, 1972 the appellant asked him to appoint some Mukhtar so that he may be spared of the necessity of coming to attend the consolidation case every day. The complainant alleged that at the instance of the appellant Syed Hussain Ahmad, original Respondent no. 2, the junior of the appellant, was appointed as Mukhtar and a Mukhtarnama was got registered. That the contents of the Mukhtarnama were not read over to him but he proceeded on the word of the appellant and having faith in him, executed Mukhtarnama in favour of his junior. Thereafter, however, the appellant entertained suspicion and on 29th January, 1972 he executed the Dead cancelling the above said Mukhtarnama and got it registered. It thereafter transpired that the appellant had obtained a Sale Deed in respect of the property in question in favour of his father from Syed Hussain Ahmad, original Respondent no.2, who had acted as Mukhtar of the complainant and as such had purported to sell the said land on behalf of the complainant in favour of the appellants father. The complainant alleged that it was never his intention to authorise the appellants junior Syed Hussain Ahmad to execute any such Deed of Transfer in respect of the suit property much less in favour of appe- llants father. All that he intended to do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document