S.C. BANERJEE Vs. J.K. GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under section 21 (1) of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants against one Shri J. K. Ghosh, a Fellow of the Institute. The proceeding out of which this reference has arisen was initiated on the complaint of one Shri S.C. Banerji, who entered on, rather was made to enter into, articles of clerkship for service as an apprentice under the respondent J.K. Ghosh.

(2.) The gist of the complaint against the respondent is that being a Fellow of the Institute and as such entitled to take three articled clerks and having already had three such clerks in his office, he did, on or about the 1st April, 1952, represent to the complainant that he had still a vacancy at his disposal and that, on such representation, he induced the complainant to enter into articles of clerkship with him on the date I have mentioned. A formal deed was executed a week later, to be precise on the 8th of April, 1952, and a premium of Rs. 1,000 was paid by the complainant to the respondent.

(3.) The findings of the Disciplinary Committee make an amazing story. It appears that after he had taken in his third articled clerk, one Satish Chandra Saha, the respondent conceived the idea of inveigling still more young men into his office and his first victim or at least one of his victims was the complainant. The plan which the respondent formed in order to carry out his project appears to have been an ingenious one, although he should have realised that he could not proceed far with its execution before he was found out. The agreement with Satish Chandra Saha was entered into on the 22nd of Dec., 1951, but some trouble appears to have ensued with regard to its due registration with the Institute. At any rate, the respondent was not too keen on having an early registration and while the case of Satish Chandra Saha was pending, the respondent entered into negotiations with the complainant. The deed of articles executed by the complainant had also to be sent on to the Institute and, quite naturally. the respondent came to realise that if the articles executed by his third articled clerk, Satish Chandra Saha, were properly lodged with and registered by the Institute and thereafter he sent the deed of a fourth articled clerk, the Institute would take no time in finding out that he was contravening the Act and the Regulations. He seems at that stage to have created a case that somehow or other Satish Chandra Saha had defaulted in carrying out the obligations of the apprenticeship and that he had informed the Institute by a letter, dated the 8th of March, 1952, that Saha's articles ought to be cancelled. If the articles of Saha were cancelled, a vacancy would undoubtedly arise and apparently the idea was to create such a fictitious vacancy into which the complainant could be conveniently pitchforked. According to the finding of the Disciplinary Committee, no letter dated the 8th of March, 1952, asking the Institute to cancel the registration of Saha's articles was ever received. In any event, even if such a letter was written by the respondent, no unilateral act by him could bring about a cancellation of Saha's articles, for which an act by the Institute itself was required. So much as to Saha. As to the complainant, the respondent was being pressed repeatedly to say what had happened to his deed of articles which had not been obtained back from the Institute after registration and it appears that the respondent adopted, to use the language of the Disciplinary Committee, a very novel procedure for quietening his apprehensions. He summoned the complainant to his presence and handed over to him a sealed letter which, on being opened, was found to contain a copy of the letter which the respondent claimed to have written to the Institute on the 8th of April, 1952, forwarding therewith the complainant's articles for registration. That letter, a purported copy of which was shown to the complainant, amounted to a statement by the respondent that he had, in fact, forwarded the articles on the date the letter was written, but quite characteristically, the respondent said later that the letter of which he had supplied the complainant with a copy was not the letter which the latter was producing, but another letter of a different effect altogether. His case before the Disciplinary Committee appears to have been that the premium agreed to between the complainant and himself was Rs. 2,000 out of which only an amount of Rs. 1,000 had been paid and that inasmuch as the balance of Rs. 1,000 remained unpaid, he broke off the negotiations with the complainant and proceeded to complete the contract with Satish Chandra Saha.