JUDGMENT

Iqbal Ahmad, J. - On the receipt of a complaint of one Prem Singh dated 23rd December 1937, about the alleged professional misconduct of Mr. Bhairo Dutt Bhandari, an advocate on the rolls of this Court and practising in the Courts at Ranikhet, this Court referred the case for inquiry to the Bar Council and the case was in due course enquired into by a tribunal of the council appointed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The charge framed by the Tribunal against the advocate was as follows:

That you, Mr. Bhairo Datt Bhandari, an advocate on the rolls of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad while practising in the Courts of the Kumaun Division, subordinate to the said High Court,.have been for a considerable time past carrying on money-lending business which is against the rules governing professional etiquette and have thereby been guilty of professional misconduct.

2. The advocate concerned filed a written statement in the course of which he admitted that during a period of ten years, viz, from 1926 to 1936, he advanced loans on promissory notes and mortgages on no less than 12 occasions. Out of these 12 transactions of loan three advances were on the security of immovable properties and the rest of the advances were made on the basis of promissory notes. All the three mortgages were in favour of the minor song of the advocate and so were some of the promissory notes and the rest of the promissory notes were in favour of the advocate himself. Out of the 12 transactions three took place in 1930 and the remaining nine advances were made in the course of nine years one in each year. It was alleged in the written statement that the advocate had from time to time set aside certain sums of money for the use and benefit of his minor children and had invested the amounts from time to time solely with the intention to benefit his sons. It was also mentioned in the written statement that the loans referred to above were made either to the relatives or to the friends of the advocate or of his family. The advocate also submitted that interest was charged on most of these loans only because the borrower expressed a preference to having the transactions placed on that basis. His motive, in most cases, according to the advocate, was not gain but the obliging of friends.

3. Prem Singh, the complainant, did not appear to substantiate the complaint before the Tribunal, but as the fact of loans being advanced by the advocate was admitted by him in his written statement, the Tribunal proceeded with the enquiry in the course of which it recorded the evidence of the advocate and of two witnesses produced by him and then, on consideration of the materials before it, came to the conclusion that the charge referred to above was not established against the advocate and forwarded its finding to this Court. The learned Advocate-General filed objections to the finding maintaining that the finding was contrary to the weight of evidence in the case and was erroneous in law. After hearing the learned Advocate-General and considering the findings on questions of fact recorded by the Tribunal we have decided, though not without some hesitation, to accept the findings of the Tribunal. The charge framed against the advocate is with respect to the breach of the following rule framed u/s 15, Bar Councils Act (38 of 1926):

No advocate while practising shall engage in trade or business or accept an appointment carrying a salary without previously obtaining the permission of the Bar Council and the High Court....

4. The question that arises for consideration is whether the advances of loan admitted by the advocate do or do not amount to engagement in money-lending business by the advocate and the answer to the question is beset with considerable difficulty. Investments of his savings by an advocate do not necessarily amount to engagement in money-lending business, the more so when such investments are few and far between and are mostly made to relations and fri