Judgment

HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. :- The appellant in these two appeals is an advocate of this Court, who on complaint by the District Judge, Delhi, 29 February, 1964, to the Bar Council of the State of Delhi, was held guilty of professional misconduct and suspended from practice for a year by the disciplinary committee of the said Bar Council. He appealed to the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under Sec. 37 of the Advocates Act. The appeal was dismissed. His appeal to this Court under Sec. 38 of the Act was dismissed summarily at the preliminary hearing. The charge against him was that while inspecting a judicial record in the company of Mr. Kuldip Singh Advocate, he tore out 2 pieces of paper from an Exhibit (C-I). The pieces were thrown by him on the ground. The clerk-in-charge reported the incident to the District Judge and the complaint followed.

2. The suit, record of which was being inspected, arose in the following circumstances. On February 6, 1963 Mr. Anant Ram Whig, an advocate, sent a notice on behalf of one Sarin to a certain Ramlal Hans and his wife claiming a sum of Rs. 4370/- as reward for the success of their daughter at an examination including tuition fees. Sarin was preparing the girl for the B. A. examination. The claim of Sarin was repudiated by Ramlal Hans in a reply dated February 11, 1963. The matter was referred to the arbitration of Mr. Mansaram, Municipal Councillor Delhi by an agreement dated February 24, 1963. The arbitrator gave an award for Rs. 1000/in favour of Sarin. The award was filed in the Court of Mr. Brijmohanlal Aggarwal, Sub-Judge, Delhi for being made a rule of the court. Ramlal Hans engaged the appellant as advocate. The appellant in his turn engaged two other advocates to conduct the actual cases and also filed his vakalatnama. A copy of the notice sent by Mr. Whig was filed in the case (Ex. C-I) but was not yet proved.

3. On February 24, 1963 the appellant went for the inspection of the record of the case in the company of his junior lawyer. The file was given by Amrik Singh, the junior clerk of the Bench. Amrik Singh then went out of the room but soon returned to his seat. Later he charged the appellant of having torn 2 pieces from a document (which was Ex. C-I) and picked up the alleged pieces from the floor. Mr. Aggarwal then arrived on the scene. The statement of the appellant was recorded. The Sub-Judge also obtained reports from his junior and Assistant clerks and made a report With the report he sent the Exhibit said to be mutilated and the two pieces said to be the torn pieces of Ex. C-I in a sealed envelope. A complaint was also made to the District Judge by Sarin. The District Judge then made a report and wrote that the document was important in the case and. action was, therefore, called for.

4. The disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of the Union Territory of Delhi took up the matter under Sec. 35 of the Advocates Act. The explanation of the advocate was called for. He explained that the charge was false and it was due to the ill-will of Mr. Aggarwal and his staff because earlier he had made some serious allegations against Mr. Kalra, Sub-Judge III Class in a transfer petition and had also started contempt proceedings. According to the appellant this led to hostility between the Judges and their staff and him. He denied that the document was important or that he had mutilated it. He asked inter alia for summoning the torn document and the pieces and they were summoned. The original document was received but not the pieces. The District Judge informed the Committee that the pieces were misplaced and were not found. The appellant maintained that they were put in the same envelope with the exhibit and he alleged that they were suppressed to deny him a legitimate defence that they were not a part of the same document.

5. Oral evidence was recorded. On the basis of the oral evidence of Amrik Singh, the petitioner was held guilty of having wantonly mutilated t