ROMA BANERJEE Vs. USHAPATI BANERJEE MUKTEAR ALIPORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act is by the Additional Sessions 'Judge, First Extra Court, Alipur.

(2.) The case against the respondent Mukhtear Ushapati Banerjee is as follows:

(3.) He was engaged by one Mrs. Roma Banerjee to conduct a prosecution by her against one Mrs. Anjali Lindsay and her husband for cheating. The case ended in the conviction of the accused persons whereupon they preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas. At this stage, the respondent represented, to the complainant Mrs. Roma Banerjee that a senior lawyer should be engaged on her behalf and induced her to pav to him Rs. 75/- as the fee of the senior lawyer to be engaged in the case. As for a long time Mrs. Banerjee received no information as to the fate of the said appeal, she caused enquiries to be made and discovered that the respondent Mukhtear had, in the meantime, without her knowledge, compromised the said criminal appeal on the accused, persons paying a sum of Rs. 1,500/--. The appeal had been transferred for disposal to the said Additional Sessions Judge and it was before him that the compromise concerned was effected. Pursuant to the compromise, the accused persons paid to the respondent Rs. 500 on 24-5-1952, Rs. 5007- on July 2, 1952 and Rs. 500 on July 19, 1952, It was on the last mentioned date that the appeal was disposed of in terms of the compromise, and no senior lawyer was at any stage engaged on Mrs. Banerjee's behalf. These sums aggregating Rs. 1,500/- were received lay the respondent against receipts which were written out by him in the margin of three petitions which the appellant accused persons filed in Court. Neither the sum of Rs. 1,500/- nor any part thereof, was, however, made over by the respondent to his client, Mrs. Banerjee. Upon discovery that the appeal had been compromised by the respondent, Mrs. Banerjee caused a pleader's notice, dated 31-10-1952, to be served upon the respondent; yet the respondent made no restitution and offered no explanation as to his conduct. This led Mrs. Banerjee to move the learned District Judge for appropriate action against the respondent under the Legal Practitioners Act. The learned District Judge forwarded this application to the said Additional Sessions Judge for disposal.