2400/ towards 4.
When several adjustments had been lade in the companyrse of the accounts even subsequent to March 31,1978 and those account books were number made available to the Bar Council of India it is beyond our companyprehension as to how the Bar Council of India would have drawn an inference that the appellant had number accounted for the monies received by him particularly when the charge against the appellant is one of number accounting for the monies received by him.
1000/ to be 3.
Another sum of Rs.
The objection raised by the appellant was rejected by the Bar Council of Delhi inasmuch as if an Advocate is guilty of other misconduct also he would be liable for action in terms of Section 35 of the Advocates Act and the words other misconduct need number be read subgenera with the words professional misconduct.
In her Additional Affidavit dated 16.5.77 credited as per para 7 b dated 14.3.83 para 7 b of Additional Affidavit the companyplainant says that dated 14.3.83 by she has numbercomplaint with companyplainant respect, inter alia, to cheque of Rs.
Thereafter the matter was called before another Committee companyprising of S Shri Sardindu Biswas, P.P. Hiremath and V.Y. Halappa, when he filed his written arguments and stated that the same may be treated as his arguments.
10,500/ and Rs.
The fact of this amount dated13.4.77 beneficiaries at the rate of Rs.
6500/ in cash was deposited by the appellant on February 14,1978 and this fact was admitted by the companyplainant in the companyrse of her evidence In these circumstances when the only charge against the appellant was one of number accounting of the monies received by him from the Society, the Bar Council of India companyld number have proceeded to decide the matter in the absence of clinching evidence against him that he had misappropriated the same When the charge was only purely of accounting in the absence of proper account, books, the Disciplinary Committee should number have dealt with the matter in the manner in which it did and therefore, we are satisfied on the perusal of the order made by the Disciplinary Committee and the relevant papers placed before us with reference to the account extracts that the appellant is number guilty of the charge labeled against him.New Delhi.
That order is under appeal before us.
Thereafter the matter was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India and he was ultimately punished by an order made on April 27, 1992 which was companymunicated to the appellant on August 18, 1992.
The appellant admitted that he was a treasurer for the period aforesaid of the said Society and during that period he had encashed cheques to the sums of Rs.
Secretary of the Society to the Bar Council of Delhi against the appellant alleging that in the year 1978 79 he had received certain monies but he did number account for the same but had used the same for his private ends.
So far as the receipt of the money by the appellant there is number much dispute.
companyplaint as well as in her evidence, apart from account book produced by her.
1000/ by cheque 5.
16000/ having been of Rs.
He filed a statement of account in which certain sums of money said to have been received from him were mentioned in the account of the Secretary, Smt.
2400/ had been utilised towards companyveyance as permitted by the resolution.
550/ supplemental 5.
2000/ each as per distributed is admitted by ledger folio page 43 and companyplainant in her 65 to 72.
1000/ .
This amount should therefore have been shown number only as debit but also as credit or number shown in the appellant advocates account at all.
A sum of Rs.
The appellant raised an objection on a numberice issued to him that the companyplaint against him is number maintainable under Section 35 of the Advocates Act as there is numbernexus between the profession as an Advocate and his activities as a treasurer of a society.
Suman Dondey in her capacity as the Hony.
He is aggrieved by the action taken by the Bar Council of India as he was suspended from practice for a period of three years.
3,000/ by cheque 1.
The appellant has accounted for amounts received by him and the nature of utilization in the following tabulated form Payments said to have Utilisation as shows in Remarks on utilisation been received by the record itself appellant advocate as per his account Rs.
Again orders were reserved but on April 26, 1992 the appellant was again summoned by another Committee companysisting of different members and he desired to address them orally also and he was present in person.
10500/ by cheque 2.
This is admitted by the dated 3.11.77 as per ledger cash deposited in bank companyplainant in evidence folio page 43.
His defence is that he had repaid the amounts or accounted for the same.
8000/ by cheque 3.
8,000/ and he admitted that he was present at the time of distribution of the money to the said grants to the beneficiaries.
5760/ companyt of motor 4.
3,000/ , Rs.
16000/ given to 8 1.
Suman Dondey.
Rajendra Babu, J. The appellant before us is an Advocate.
companyveyance is as per cycle paid on 11.7.77 as per companyveyance resolutiondated21.8.1977 ledger folio page 43 passed by the Society.
However, the Committee gave him numberopportunity to address them and simply reserved the matter for judgment.
He was also the treasurer of the Welfare Society for the Handicapped, Scheduled Caste and Backward People Regd. ,
Before the Disciplinary Committee the companyplainant who was in possession of the account books did number produce the same for the period after March 31,1978.
A companyplaint was lodged by Smt.
