PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA versus GURDIAL SINGH

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 28 · Decided: 23-09-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PA WAN KUMAR SHARMA 
v. 
GURDIAL SINGH 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1998 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND V.N. KHARE, JJ.) 
Bar Council of India Rules : 
Rules 47 and 48-Advocate-P;-ofessional misconduct-Nature of 
C charge-Complaint filed against Advocate that he was engaged in "taxi 
business "-Advocate admitting that prior to his enrolment, he was engaged 
in the business, but after the issuance of licence he had started winding up 
the said business and was not doing any business-Held, charge of 
professional misconduct is in the nature of quasi-criminal charge-It is 
required to be established not by preponderance of probabilities but beyond 
D a reasonable doubt-In the instant case, the evidence led only shows that 
the appellant owned four taxis-Mere ownership of taxis cannot lead to any 
irresistible conclusion that he was engaged in taxi business after his enrolment 
as an Advocate-The evidence does not establish the charge of misconduct-
Order of Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India holding the appellant 
E guilty of professional misconduct and suspending him from practising for one 
year is set aside. 
F 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression "personally engaged in any business" occurring in R. 47 
of Bar Council of India Rules-Meaning of 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3407 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.98 of the Disci1Jinary Committee 
of the Bar Council oflndia, in B.C.I.T.P. Code No. 9of1994. 
G 
M.R. Sharma, B. Kanta Rao, Ms. Anjana Sharma and Ms. Sudha Gupta 
H 
for the Appellant. 
L. Nageshwar Rao and D. Mahesh Babu for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Appellant has called in question the order of the Disciplinary Committee 
28 
) 
P.K. SHARMA v. G. SINGH 
29 
of the Bar Council of India dated 11.4.1998 vide which he was punished by A 
suspension from practice for one year with effect from the date of receipt of 
a copy of the order. The circumstances which led to the filing of this appeal 
need a brief notice : 
Respondent is the complainant against the appellant - advocate. On 
28.8.1991, he filed a complaint alleging that the appellant was doing "taxi B 
business" and had at the relevant time four taxis in his ownership. It was 
alleged that since the appellant was practising as a Lawyer, he could not have 
carried on the taxi business without the permission of the Bar Council and 
since no such permission had been obtained by him, he was guilty of committing 
professional misconduct. This complaint was filed initially with the State Bar C 
Council but since it could not be disposed of within a period of one year from 
the date of the complaint, the same was transferred to the Bar Council oflndia 
under Section 36-B of the Advocates Act for its disposal. Before the 
Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, evidence was led on the 
issue viz. "whether respondent has committed the professional misconduct, 
as mentioned in the complaint?". 
D 
The evidence led on behalf of the complainant as well as that of the 
appellant shows that the appellant had himself enrolled as an Advocate with 
the Punjab and Haryana Bar Coun0il in January, 1990. At the time when he 
so enrolled himself his family was doing taxi business and he himself also 
owned four taxis. The case of the appellant was that after his enrolment as E 
an Advocate, he transferred all the taxis to different persons and handed over 
their possession to them and that he did not carry on with the "taxi business" 
thereafter. He filed copies of the affidavits by which transfers had been made 
by him in favour of different persons. 
The Disciplinary Committee after considering the evidence on the record, F 
came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of professional misconduct 
and suspended him from practice for one year. 
We have heard counsel for the parties. 
Rule 47 of the Bar Council of India Rules reads as follows : 
"Rule 47 - An Advocate shall not personally engage in any business; 
but he may be a sleeping partner in a firm doing business provided 
that, in the opinion of the appropriate State Bar Council, the nature 
of the business is not inconsistent with the dignity of profession. 
Rule 48 reads thus : 
G 
H 
30 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
"Rule 48 - An Advocate may be Director or Chairman of the Board 
of Directors of a company with or without any ordinary sitting fee, 
provided none of his duties are of an executive character. An Advoc

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