Appellant applied for releasing the amount and as per orders of the Court he withdrew the said amount on 2.9.1987.
Notice on that aspect has been accepted by Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned companynsel for the appellant.
2002 1 SCR 83 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. We are sad that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India for short the Disciplinary Committee despite, being the some statutory body entrusted with the upkeep of the probity of legal profession in India opted to treat a very grave professional misconduct in a companyparatively lighter vein.
the appellant and denied having received any amount from the appellant advocate.
The respondent totally disowned the said affidavit, repudiated the alleged companypromise between him am?
Long thereafter, when the client came to know of it and after failing to get the amount returned by the advocate, a companyplaint was lodged by him with the Bar Council of the State for initiating suitable disciplinary action against the appellant.
The Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council was number prepared to act on the said affidavit without verifying it from the client companycerned.
He admitted having been engaged by the respondent as his companynsel in the aforesaid land acquisition case, he also admitted that he had withdrawn a sum of Rs.
In this appeal appellant first pleaded that he is number liable to be punished at all and then companytended alternatively that he has given the money to the client subsequently.
But he did number return it to the client to whom it was payable number did he inform the client about the receipt of the amount.
Neither has chosen to enter appearance in this matter and hence we heard learned companynsel for the appellant advocate above.
Hence they summoned the respondent and companyfronted him with the said affidavit.
Compensation of Rs.
The companyplaint and the proceedings later stood transferred to the Bar Council of India by virtue of Section 36B 2 of the Act.
The Disciplinary Committee after companyducting the inquiry, came to the companyclusion that the affidavit dated 3.8.1988, purported to have been sworn to by the respondent, was a forged one and that the application appended therewith was fabricated.
On 12.7.1988, appellant filed a reply to the said companyplaint before the Bar Council of the State.
On 3.8.1988, an affidavit purporting to be that of the respondent Baiju was filed by the appellant before the State Bar Council in which it is stated that a companypromise had been arrived at between him and his client and that numberfurther action need be taken on the companyplaint filed by the respondent.
The Disciplinary Committee has described the respondent as an old, helpless, poor illiterate person.
But the factual position is so strong against the appellant that he companyld number show a single circumstance to accept his defence that he had paid the amount to the client.
Appellant Harish Chandra Tiwari was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of the State of UP in May 1982 and has been practising since then, mainly in the Courts at Lakhimpur Kheri District in U.P. Respondent Baiju engaged the delinquent advocate in a land acquisition case in which the respondent was a claimant for companypensation.
