JUDGMENT

ASHOK BHAN, J. — Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, for short “the State Bar Council” has filed this appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in D. C. Appeal No. 39 of 1997 dated 28th March, 1999 by which the Bar Council of India has set aside the order passed by the State Council removing the name of Kurapati Satyanarayana, hereinafter referred to “the delinquent.” from the roll of the State Bar Council as he was found guilty of grave professional misconduct in the discharge of his duties as an advocate.

2. O.S. No. 1624 of 1991 was filed by Sri Gutta Nagabhu¬shanam, hereinafter referred to ‘the de facto complainant”. on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, West Godavari District, Eluru through the delinquent Advocate. The said suit having been decreed, Execution Petition No. 112 of 1995 was instituted for realisation of the decretal amount. Delinquent was engaged as the counsel for the de facto complainant in the execu¬tion proceedings as well. The delinquent received a total sum of Rs. 14,600/- on various dates in the execution proceedings but did not make payment of the same to the de facto complainant. On 18th October, 1996 the de facto complainant filed a complaint with the Additional District Munsif, Eluru. On the said complaint Additional District Munsif, Eluru passed the following orders :

“Decree-holder present. Sri. K. Satyanarayana absent perused the entire record. The memo filed by D.H.R. along with original receipt issued by Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate. D/2.4.1996 and the photostat copy of calculation memo dt. 16.8.1996 prepared by Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate, which is not signed by D. Hr. and along wit this complaint and counter be submitted to the Secre¬tary, Bar Council of A.P. in High Court premises, through the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru for taking necessary action with covering letter. D. Hr. is informed in open Court.”

3. The complaint filed by the de facto complainant along with the reply filed by the delinquent and the connected docu¬ments were forwarded to the Bar Council of the Andhra Pradesh in the High Court premises for appropriate action. The State Bar Council took notice of the complaint filed and issued a notice to the delinquent. The delinquent in spite of the service of notice did not choose to file a counter. The State Bar Council referred the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. The State Disciplinary Committee after examining the witnesses produced by the complain¬ant came to the conclusion that the delinquent had received a total sum of Rs. 14,600/- belonging and payable to the de facto complainant on different dates and retained the same with him.

4. Assertion of the delinquent that he had informed the complainant through a postcard about the receipt of the decretal amount was not accepted. That in spite of in undertaking (Ex. C-1) dated 24th April, 1996 given in writing by the delinquent to pay a sum of Rs. 11,000/- to the complainant, the same was not paid. The story putforth that he had a sum of Rs. 11,000/- on 4th September, 1996 was not accepted because the delinquent failed to produce any receipt given by the complainant evidencing the payment of the said amount to the complainant. It was noted that only on 19th August, 1997 a demand Draft No. 808327 of Rs. 3,600/- and a demand draft No. 0142169 dated 17th October, 1997 for Rs. 2,900/- drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad in favour of the complainant were sent. The Committee directed that the said two drafts be forwarded to the complainant without prejudice to his any other right, if any. It was special¬ly mentioned that the payment of the said two amounts would not obliterate the misconduct of the delinquent.

5. The delinquent preferred an appeal before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. The Discipli¬nary Committee of the Bar Council of India agreed with the find¬ing of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Committee