- (1.) Agree with the judgment delivered by my brother Mitter but in view of the importance of the question and the difference between my brethren I have chosen to express myself separately.
(2.) We heard this appeal on a preliminary point raised by the appellant that the appeal of the Advocate-General of Maharashtra filed before the Bar council of India was incompetent as the Advocate-General did not fall within the expression 'person aggrieved' to whom alone is given the right of appeal under Section 37 of the Advocates Act of 1961, against the orders of the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of the State.
(3.) The facts necessary to bring out the controversy, may be briefly stated. The appellant is an advocate from Maharashtra. The Bar council of the State of Maharashtra had called upon him suo motu to show cause why he should not be held guilty of misconduct. It appears that the appellant was convicted before a Summary court in London on a charge of pilfering some articles from departmental stores and sentenced to a fine. The record of the proceedings in London was not before the Bar council of the State and action was taken on the basis of a brief report of the incident in a newspaper. The appellant explained before the disciplinary committee of the Bar council of the State that he was the victim of a misunderstanding but as he had no means of defending himself effectively, he was found guilty and received alight sentence of fine. He explained how he had fallen-into this unfortunate predicament and did not know how to extricate himself. The order of the Summary court was not a speaking order and the proceedings were summary. The disciplinary committee were satisfied that there was no reason to hold him guilty of professional or other misconduct. They, therefore, ordered that the proceedings be filed.;