DISTRICT JUDGE Vs. PEADER M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE District Judge, Poona has submitted a report under Section 26 of the Bombay Pleader Act, 1920, to take disciplinary action against one Shri M who has been enrolled as a pleader under the Bombay Pleaders Act, 1920.

(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. In the year 1969, Shri M was working as a senior Police Prosecutor in Ratnagiri District. The allegation against him was that he demanded an amount of Rs. 100/ - as a bribe for getting a couple of cases adjourned and for trying to get acquittal of the accused in those cases. A Special Case No. 4 of 1971 was filed against him and he was tried by the; Special Judge, Kolhapur. The learned Judge found him guilty and convicted him under Section 161 of the Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to various terms of imprisonment which were ordered to run concurrently. In the result, he was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Besides, he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000/ -. The Criminal Appeal No. 1303 of 1971 preferred by him in this Court came to be dismissed subject to the modification that the line was reduced to Rs. 3,000/ -. The pleader M has undergone the substantive sentence and also paid the fine. By this letter dated August 26, 1975, the Director, Anti -Corruption, submitted a report to the District Judge to take disciplinary action against him in view of the aforesaid conviction. On a notice being issued, Shri M who was then practising in Poona court, submitted his written statement admitting all the allegations about his conviction and sentence. He, however, pleaded for mercy, having regard to the fact that he has already undergone a severe punishment for his crime and that he had a large family of 7 -8 persons to maintain. He pleaded that in the event of his losing his Sanad, his family would starve as he has no other means of maintenance except the legal profession. The learned District Judge has, therefore, submitted a report under Section 26 of the Act for taking appropriate disciplinary action for the improper conduct on the part of Shri M.

(3.) MR . Sawant, the learned Government Pleader, appearing for Shri M did not dispute that this Court will have the jurisdiction to act under the Pleaders Act, 1920. He, however, submitted that Shri M has been sufficiently punished for his lapses. He has already undergone sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and has paid a very heavy fine of Rs. 3,000. He submitted that Shri M who is aged about 60 years has a large family to maintain and his family has to depend merely on his small earnings out of his legal profession which he is carrying on in Poona. He submitted that having regard to the stigma which he has been already carrying on account of his conviction, he is unable to get any practice worth the name and if a serious view is taken, and if he loses his right to practice, his family would be ruined. He relied on the provisions of Section 25 of the Bombay Pleaders Act and contended that this is a fit case where the ends of justice would be met by reprimanding M or imposing some fine. Having regard to the serious lapses on the part of the lawyer, and the conviction imposed on him for an offence which clearly was derogatory to the office which he held, we do not think that this is a fit case where a fine should be imposed or he should be merely reprimanded. In our view, ends of justice would be met if the lawyer is suspended from practice for a period of six months.