A.S. Anand, C.J.I. and R.C. Lahoti and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

1. The Appellant has come up in appeal against an order, dated February 20, 1999 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, whereby an appeal filed by the Appellant against the order, dated January 13, 1989 passed by the Bar Council for the State of Maharashtra and Goa (for short the State Bar Council') was confirmed. The State Bar Council had suspended the Appellant from the roll of advocates for practising, for a period of three years. The period of suspension was upheld by the Bar Council of India vide order impugned before us. Subsequently, it appears that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India vide order, dated May 31, 1999 had stayed the operation of its earlier order dated February 20, 1999 for a period of six weeks to enable the Appellant to move this Court. The Appellant at present is suspended from practice.

2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has taken us through the order of the State Bar Council as also the appellate order of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. He submitted that the findings recorded by the Bar Council of India were not sustainable but faced with the evidence on which the Bar Council of India had relied and the manner of consideration of the material on record, learned Counsel confined himself to the question of period of suspension only. It is submitted that the punishment for suspending the licence to practise for a period of three years for a young advocate was out of proportion to the gravity of the offence and that the Appellant, a young advocate, has now learnt his lesson and has suffered much because of the suspension of his licence to practise for the last about 15 months or so. II is submitted that the sentence of suspension of licence may kindly be reduced as the entire family of the advocate is suffering.

3. After giving the entire record, our careful consideration and keeping in view various factors as are available on the record, it appears to us appropriate to restore the licence to practise to the Appellant with effect from October 1, 2000. The suspension shall, therefore, stand reduced to the period till September 30, 2000. The Appellant shall, however, pay Rs. 5,000 (five thousand) only by way of costs to the State Bar Council.

4. With the aforesaid modification in punishment, this appeal is disposed of.