Advocate discipline requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; doubtful evidence cannot sustain gross misconduct or permanent disbarment.

Disciplinary proceedings that may permanently deprive an advocate of the right to practise require evidence leaving no reasonable doubt of guilt. On the material considered, the complainant's account was not wholly trustworthy, and the surrounding circumstances, including delayed complaint, a disputed fee transaction and doubtful documentary support, created significant uncertainty on both sides. The SC found that this evidentiary doubt did not justify sustaining the finding of gross professional misconduct or the extreme penalty of permanent disbarment, and the advocate was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the finding of gross professional misconduct and the order of permanent disbarment against the advocate could be sustained on the evidence.

Analysis: In disciplinary proceedings affecting an advocate's right to practise, the evidence must be of such character as to leave no reasonable doubt about guilt. The material on record showed circumstances creating doubt about the truthfulness and reliability of both sides, and the complainant's version was not found to be wholly trustworthy. The surrounding facts, including the delay in making the complaint, the disputed fee transaction, and the doubtful documentary support, did not justify affirming the extreme penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.

Conclusion: The finding of gross professional misconduct and the order of disbarment could not be upheld, and the advocate was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---