- (1.) These are two appeals under S. 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
(2.) The appellant is an advocate only enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Proceedings were initiated against the appellant by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council on a complaint made by the respondent accusing the appellant of having taken dealership of a retail outlet of petroleum products. On enquiry, the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council found the charge proved. According to the State Bar Council, the appellant, though a practising advocate, applied for the dealership and subsequently secured a letter of intent in his favour. Thereafter, the petrol pump was also started. The complaint was made after about two years of the retail outlet having remained in operation. During the pendency of the enquiry against the appellant, he entered into a partnership with his younger brother wherein the mutual arrangement arrived at between the two partners was that the appellant would remain a sleeping partner and his younger brother would actively and wholly look after the business. On 20-6-1998, the State Bar Council having held the appellant guilty of professional misconduct, directed his license to practice to be suspended for a period of one year under Cl. (c) of sub-section (3) of S. 35 of the Act.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the State Bar Council, the appellant as well as the complainant preferred two appeals; while the appellant sought for the order of the State Bar Council being set aside, the complainant sought for enhancement of punishment. Both the appeals have been disposed of by a common order dated 25-8-1998. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed while the complainant's appeal has been allowed. The operative part of the order has been so constructed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India : "we order suspending Shri Madhav Moreshwar Bhokarikar from practice for a period of five years enhancing the punishment awarded by the Bar Council of Maharashtra for a period of one year. Even after the lapse of five years, he will not be allowed to resume the practice automatically unless and until he satisfies the Bar Council of Maharashtra that he has abondoned the business in toto and/or will become the sleeping partner and in case the Bar Council of Maharashtra considers that business can be constitutionally carried on as contemplated under R. 47, only in that event suspensions would stand revoked. Otherwise, the same shall continue and the Advocate concerned will not be entitled to practise.";