- (1.)THE complainant K. Ashok, filed a complaint against R. Sampath Kumar, Advocate under Section 35 of the Advocates Act before the Bar Council of Karnataka. The complaint against R. Sampath Kumar was that he represented himself to be a Real Estate Agent and offered 25 acres of land in Devarabisanahalli, Kadubisanahalli, Kariyammana Agrahara, Doddakanneli and adjoining village of Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The further complaint was that a M.O.U. (Memorandum of Understanding) was entered into on 14.9.95 between the complainant and his friends at one side and A. Sampath Kumar at other side and complainant and his friends paid a sum of Rs. 41,00,000/ - to said A. Sampath Kumar, who misappropriated said amount which was advanced to him. The price of land was settled at the rate of Rs. 16,50,000/ - per acre.
(2.)THE further complaint was that Mr. R. Sampath Kumar negotiated the sale of same land in favour of On the aforesaid basis, apart from filing criminal complaint as well as criminal case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant also filed complaint before the Bar Council of Karnataka. After holding an inquiry, the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council held the allegations were duly established. It may be worthwhile to mention that even the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted the appellant for offences under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years. The Bar Council passed the orders cancelling the licence of the appellant. The appellant preferred the appeal against the order of the Bar Council which has been dismissed by the Bar Council of India vide orders dated 24.6.2002.
After going through the record, we find that the finding of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Committee, in the circumstances narrated above are without blemish and do not suffer from any infirmity. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that one opportunity should be given to the appellant to reform himself. He has pointed out that the appellant is out of practice for last 12 years when the order of the Bar Council of India was passed on 24.6.2002 and from that date, the order of the Bar Council of Karnataka cancelling the licence came into operation. Order passed by the Bar Council of Karnataka was suspended during the pendency of appeal before the Bar Council of India. He further submits that during this period, the appellant has settled the matter with the complainant as well. He further informs that against the order of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 420 IPC, appeal was dismissed and then the revision petition was filed in the High Court. Those proceedings were also compounded in view of the settlement of the dispute with the complainant. The learned counsel further submits that the appellant is ready to file an affidavit of undertaking for maintaining good conduct and behaviour before the State Bar Council.

(3.)HAVING regard to the aforesaid facts and particularly when the matter is settled with the complainant and the appellant has suffered for a period of 12 years while maintaining the findings of the disciplinary authority, we reduce the punishment by substituting it with the punishment of suspension of the licence for a period of 12 years, i.e. upto 24 th June, 2014. It would be subject to filing of undertaking as stipulated above, within a period of four weeks. The appeal stands disposed of.