THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF

THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

D.C. Appeal No. 46/2011
A. Appellant
Vs.
R.
Respondent
Quorum:
Shri B.S. Rathore, Chairman
Shri I.N. Mehta, Member
Shri Malkhan Singh, Member

Facts of the case :

 The present appeal was filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated
14-07-2011 passed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh(UP) in D. C. No. 103/2008
whereby the present appellant was held guilty of professional misconduct as envisaged
in the under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 and was consequently permanent
debarred practicing legal profession.
 The brief facts of the case are that the District Magistrate, Agra lodged a complaint
under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against the present appellant on dated 20-
07-2007 and requested the State Bar Council to remove him from the panel of advocates
on the ground that he was involved in several criminal cases and was also declared
history-sheeter by police as on the day of his enrolment.
 It is also stated by the respondent before the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council
of UP that one inspector posted in Shahganj Police Station, Agra submitted his affidavit
dated 14-05-2007 and crime report has been Exh. A-3 vide which the appellant was
declared history-sheeter by the police.
 As per the documents, the appellant was found to be involved as many as 36 cases of
very serious nature. As per allegations contained in the complaint, the appellant has
purposely concealed the fact of being involved in large number one heinous crimes in
the form of his enrolment.
 The appellant at the time of his enrolment gave a affidavit wherein he had stated that he
has not been convicted in any case in para No. 3 of the said affidavit.

 When confronted with the aforesaid propositions, the appellart took a plea that he had no
intention to suppress any fact and it was on account of some mistake on his part.

Issue of the case :

Findings of BCI

 The Disciplinary Committee of BCI has held the impugned judgement order passed by
 the Disciplinary Committee, the State Bar Council of UP as quite a legal and speaking
one and said there is no reason to interfere with the same in appeal.
 Moreover, as per the provision of the Advocates Act, 1961 a person who is seeking
enrolment as an advocate before the State Bar Council,
◦ is supposed to explain each and every fact which is in his knowledge and
◦ is not supposed to conceal anything at the time of enrolment before the State Bar
Council.
 Non-disclosure of existence of multiple criminal cases by the appellant seems to be
intentional and willful. Admittedly, the appellant was a history-sheeter and was
personally involved in as many as 36 criminal cases before and after of his enrolment.
Order of BCI

 As such the Committee is of the view that the person with such a criminal background
does not deserve to remain in the legal profession which is meant for noble people and
not for those who are menace to the Society and as such the appellant does not deserve
any leniency in the matter. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Committee is of the
view that there is no substance in the appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed
with no order as to costs.