AN ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint by the decree-holder in O.S. No. 50 of 1955 on the file of the Changanacherry Munsiff's Court against the advocate engaged by him for that case, on the allegation that the Advocate had withdrawn Rs. 270/ deposited by the judgment-debtor in the case for payment to the complainant- decree-holder as per the Debt Relief Act, but has not paid the same to the complainant in spite of repeated demands and a registered notice through counsel. The complaint was referred to the learned District Judge of Quiton for inquiry, and his report concludes thus : "The counter-petitioner is thus guilty of misappropriation of his client's money even though the misappropriation was only temporary. 'The fact that the misappropriation is only temporary does not lessen the offence or the gravity of the misconduct'. (In the matter of S. an advocate, 1937 Mad WN 1322 (FB). I am of the view therefore that the counter-petitioner ......... is guilty of professional misconduct in that his client's money was misappropriated by him and I recommend that appropriate action may be taken against him". Nothing was brought out in the discussion at the Bar before this Bench to satisfy us that this finding is in any way incorrect. We, therefore, accept the finding of the learned District Judge in the matter.

(2.) The only question that remains is the quantum of punishment to be imposed on the counter-petitioner. The petitioner has not disclosed the date when the counter-petitioner withdrew the amount from court. But, the counter-petitioner has admitted receipt of a notice demanding the money, issued to him by the complainant on 26-2-1959, and that he paid the amount only on 12-12-1959 even after the complaint before the Ear Council was filed by the decree-holder on 24-6-1959. The retention of the client's money by the counter-petition or even after demand by the client for a period of 9 months and more had no excuse whatever, and was quite unbecoming of the advocate. There is no case even that any fee was due to him.

(3.) Cases of professional misconduct cannot be viewed as cases for recovery of money or on breach of contract. This court is bound to uphold the high and rigid standard of