Thomas, J. - (1.)We are said that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India (for short 'the Disciplinary Committee') despite being the acme statutory body entrusted with the upkeep of the probity of legal profession in India opted to treat a very grave professional misconduct in a comparatively lighter vein. The Disciplinary Committee held an advocate guilty of breach of trust for misappropriating the asset of a "poor" client. But having held so the Disciplinary Committee has chosen to impose a punishment of suspending the advocate from practice for a period of three years.
(2.)The delinquent advocate filed this appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). We told him that in the event of this Court upholding the finding of misconduct he should show cause why the punishment shall not be enhanced to removal of his name from the roll of the Bar Council of the State concerned. Notice on that aspect has been accepted by Mr. M.M. Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant.
(3.)We issued notices to the Bar Council of India and also to the Bar Council of U.P. Neither has chosen to enter appearance in this matter and hence we heard learned counsel for the appellant-advocate above.