BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KURUPATI SATYA NARAYANA

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 15-11-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BAR COUNCIL OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
v. 
KURUPATI SATYA NARAYANA 
NOVEMBER 15, 2002 
B 
(V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
Section 38-Person aggrieved-Statq_ Bar Council acting in the capacity 
C of prosecutor would be an aggrieved person-Hence appeal filed by it is 
maintainable. 
Complaint of professional misconduct against Adv·ocate for 
misappropriation of money received on behalf of his client-State Bar Council 
D found advocate guilty of grave professional misconduct and struck off his · 
name from the roll-Bar Council of India reversed the Order-On appeal, 
held, since delinquent advocate committed an act of breach of trust by 
misappropriation of money received on behalf of his client, such act would 
amount to grave professional misconduct-It would undermine the confidence 
of the litigant public- Removal of name of the delinquent advocate from the 
E roll of Bar Council was the appropriate punishment, rightly awarded by the 
State Bar Council. 
Respondent-Advocate received certain amount on behalf of his 
client-Complainant in an execution proceeding and misappropriated it. 
Complainant filed a complaint against the delinquent advocate before the 
F Additional District Munsif, who transferred the same to State Bar Council 
for·further action in the matter. State Bar Council referred the same to 
the State Disciplinary Committee. In the meanwhile, delinquent advocate 
made part payment to the complainant through the State Bar Council but 
committee found him guilty of misconduct and on its recommendations 
G State bar Council struck-off his name from the roll of Bar Council. On 
appeal, Bar Council of India reversed the order of State Bar Council. 
Hence this appeal by the State Bar Council. 
H 
It was contended for the respondent that appeal filed by State Bar 
Council is not maintainable as it is not the person aggrieved. 
204 
. .. 
BAR COUNCIL OF A.P. v. KURUPATISATYANARAYANA 
205 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: I. The role of the Bar Council is of dual capacity, one as 
the prosecutor through its Executive Committee and the other as quasi-
judicial, performed through its Disciplinary Committee. Being the 
prosecutor the State Bar Council would be an "aggrieved person" and, 
therefore, the appeal under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961 would B 
be maintainable on its behalf. (208-B, CJ 
Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M. V. Dabholkar and Ors., (1975( 2 SCC 
701, followed. 
2. It was neither pleaded nor shown by the delinquent that he was C 
in dire financial difficulty which prompted him to utilise the decretal 
amount for his treatment which was with him in trust. This is an act of 
breach of trust. Such types of excuses cannot be entertained being frivolous 
and unsustainable. Adherence to correct professional conduct in the 
discharge of one's duties as an advocate is the backbone of legal system. D 
Any laxity while judging the misconduct which is not bonafide and 
dishonest would undermine the confidence of the litigant public resulting 
in the collapse of legal system. This is an act of grave professional 
misconduct. The conduct of the delinquent, who is an elderly gentleman, 
is reprehensible and is unbecoming of an advocate. The finding of the 
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India that there was no E 
intention on the part of the delinquent advocate to misappropriate the 
money of his client or to de-fraud him is not only unfounded and perverse 
but also lacks the serious thought which was required to be given by the 
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in the discharge of 
quasi-judicial function while probing into the grave charge of professional 
misconduct by an advocate in the discharge of his duties as a counsel. 
Having regard to the serious nature of misconduct the punishment of 
removal of his name from the roll of Bar Council would be the only 
appropriate punishment. [209-B, H; 210-A-C] 
F 
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju, (2002) 2 SCC 67, relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3412 of 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.1999 of the Disciplinary 
Committee of Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 39/97. 
H 
.206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Sudhir Nandrajog and Virendra Rawat, for the Appellant. 
S. Vittal Rao and Mrs. Sudha Gupta, for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
BHAN, J. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, for short "the State Bar 
Council"

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.