NILGIRIS BAR ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, UDHAGAI Vs. THE INSPECTOR, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, UDHAGAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Nilgiris Bar Association, represented by its President, feeling ostensibly aggrieved, at the second Respondent having been released under Section 4(l) of the Probation of Offenders Act, by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Uthagamandalam, after finding him guilty under Sections 419 and 420, Indian Penal Code. (three counts) in C.C. No. 21 of 1986 on his file, has chosen to prefer this criminal revision case, pleading for enhancement of sentence imposed on the second Respondent, on the sole ground of maintaining the dignity and nobility of the legal profession which, to a great extent, stood affected in the Uthagamandalam area, due to the j unbecoming conduct of the second Respondent, who, without obtaining a law degree or having enrolled himself as a member of the legal profession, had not only chosen to practice as an Advocate in that locality, but also had the courage and temerity to get himself elected as Secretary of the Nilgiris Bar Association.

(2.) BEFORE scrutinising the acceptability of the plea made by the Nilgiris Bar Association, for imposition of a sentence on the second Respondent, it will be necessary to narrate the facts, which led to his prosecution.

(3.) THE second Respondent, who appears to have understood, the gravity of the crime committed by him, either by himself or through the advice obtained by him, had correctly bowed down to the majesty of the legal institution and, without a demur, accepted before the Judicial Magistrate, Ulhagamandalam, that he was guilty of the charges. While doing so, he placed for the consideration of the learned Magistrate, that he had since passed in several papers in his law degree examination, though certain other papers, to get his degree in full, had to be answered in the examinations to be conducted. He pleaded for benevolent treatment on the ground that he was married and was also the father of two children. He placed for court's consideration, his embedded anxiety and eagerness to practice as a lawyer, from his younger days, which led to his committing a mistake, a grave mistake, at that, by posing as a lawyer and undertaking briefs and appearing as well before courts, on that false foundation as a I lawyer.