http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GURDIAL SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/09/1998

BENCH: S.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: O R D E R Appellant has called in question the  order  of  the Disciplinary  Committee  of  the  Bar Council of India dated 11.4.1998 vide which he  was  punished  by  suspension  form practice  for  one year with effect from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.  The circumstances which led to  the filing of this appeal need a brief notice: Respondent  is the complainant against the appellant - advocate.  On 28.8.1991, he  filed  a  complaint  alleging that  the appellant was doing "taxi business" and had at the relevant time four taxis in his ownership.  It  was  alleged that  since  the  appellant  was  practising as a Lawyer, he could not have carried on  the  taxi  business  without  the permission  of  the Bar Council and since no such permission had been obtained  by  him,  he  was  guilty  of  committing professional misconduct.  This complaint was filed initially with  the  State  Bar  Council  but  since  it  could not be disposed of within a period of one year from the date of the complaint, the same was transferred to the  Bar  Council  of India  under  Section  36-B  of  the  Advocates  Act for its disposal.  Before the  Disciplinary  Committee  of  the  Bar Council  of  India,  evidence  was  led  on  the  issue viz. "whether   respondent   has   committed   the   professional misconduct, as mentioned in the complaint?". The  evidence  led  on  behalf of the complainant as well as that of the appellant showsthat  the  appellant  had himself  enrolled as an Advocate with the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council in January, 1990.    At  the  time  when  he  so enrolled  himself  his family was doing taxi business and he himself also owned four taxis.  The case  of  the  appellant was  that after his enrolment as an Advocate, he transferred all the taxis to different persons and handed over with  the taxi business"   thereafter.      He  filed  copies  of  the affidavits by which transfers had been made by him in favour of different persons. The  Disciplinary  Courtnee  after  considering  the evidence of the record, to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty or professional misconduct and suspended him from practice for one year. We ........  .......  counsel for the parties.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules  reads  as follows :         "Rule   47   -   An   Advocate  shall  not         personally engage in any business; but  he         may  be a sleeping partner in a firm doing         business provided that, in the opinion  of         the  appropriate  State  Bar  Council, the         nature of the business is not inconsistent         with the dignity of profession.         Rule 48 reads thus: "Rule 48 - An Advocate may be Director or         Chairman  of  the  Board of Directors of a         company  with  or  without  any   ordinary         sitting  fee,  provided none of his duties         are of an executive character, An Advocate         shall not be  a  Managing  Director  or  a         Secretary of any company. A bare perusal of the aforesaid two Rules shows that an  Advocate  shall  not personally engage "in any business" though he may be a sleeping partner in a firm doing business he may also act as a Director or Chairman of  the  Board  of Directors  of  a Company with or without my ordinary sitting fee,  provide  none  of  his  duties  are  of  an  executive character. Charge  of  professional misconduct is in the nature of a  quasi-criminal  charge.    It  is   required   to   be established,  not  by  preponderance  of  probabilities  but beyond a reasonable doubt.  In the entire  evidence  led  on behalf of the complainant, there is not a whisper that after the  enrolment  of the appellant in January, 1990 he engaged himself or carried on the taxi business.  The  evidence  led in  the case only shows the appellant owned four taxis after his enrollment as an advocate, the  mere  ownership  of  the taxis cannot lead to any irresistible conclusion that he was engaged  in  "taxi  business"  after  his  enrolment  as  an Advocate.  In his deposition,  the  appellant  appearing  as RW-2  stated  that  after the issuance of the licence of the Bar Council, he lied start ...  up his business in which  he was  engaged  price to his enrolment as an Advocate and that he was not doing nay "taxi business" after  his  enrollment. This  statement  has  remained unregulated and has also gone unchallenged in the cross-examination.  Even the complainant in his evidence did not depose that the appellant carried on with his taxi business after his enrollment as an advocate. In  the  face  of this material on the record, it is not possible to say that  the  complainant  has  established that after the enrolment of the appellant as an Advocate, he was personally  engaged  in  taxi business.  The evidence on the record is vague, indefinite and scanty.    It  does  not establish  the  charge  of misconduct against the appellant. The disciplinary committee of  the  Bar  Council  of  India, thus,  fell  in  error  in  holding  the appellant guilty of professional minsconduct.  The charge  again  the  appellant has not been established at all, let alone being established beyond reasonable doubt.  Consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India dated 11-4-1998.  No costs.