C VAMANA MURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sri C. Vamana Murthy was practising as a pleader in the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam-Nayagarh from January 1947 to 23-6-1950. He was appointed as a Deputy Magistrate and Collector by the Government of Orissa and joined his service on 24-6-1950 on account of which he had to suspend his practice after intimating the fact to the then District Judge at Berhampur. By an order dated 28-1-1954 of Sri N. Senapathy, Secretary to the Government of Orissa, Revenue Department, the petitioner was dismissed from service from 27 12-1953. The order shows that the petitioner was found guilty of submitting an answer paper in the Departmental Examination held in April 1952 on "Translation from English to Oriya" which was written by somebody else. On 17-6-1954 the petitioner has submitted a petition out of which this reference arises for renewal of his license to practise as a pleader. As we thought it fit to dispose of his petition judicially after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being hoard before us the petitioner was served with a notice to which he has filed a memorandum showing cause why his petition for renewal of the pleadership license should not be rejected.

(2.) It is to be noted here that before filing his petition for renewal of pleadership license the petitioner had applied for being enrolled as an Advocate which was dismissed -- the opinion of the Bar Council being against such enrolment. This petition is covered by the provisions of Rule 23 of the Rules framed by the Court under Sections 6 and 7, Legal Practitioners Act (Act 18 of 1879). The Rule appearing at p. 160 of the General Rules and Circular orders of High Court of Judicature, Orissa, (Civil) Vol. -I, 1949 Edn., reads as follows :

(3.) Mr. A.L.J. Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has however relied upon a few decisions. In the case of -- 'In re Mukunda Lal Dhar', 27 Cal WN. 528 (A), there was an application for renewal of certificate as a pleader. The applicant was appointed in the police service under the Eastern Bengal and Assam Administration and had therefore to suspend his practice during the period of service. Subsequently the applicant having been discharged from police service he filed a petition for renewal of his license. He was discharged from service because of the part he played in a criminal case. The petitioner who had been assaulted and stabbed in the house of a woman filed a complaint. On investigation by the Magistrate it was found that the allegation of assault was well founded but that the circumstances under which the event had happened were not as narrated by the complainant in the witness-box. There was consequently a conviction of the accused in the case though not exactly on the basis of the story told by the petitioner. After determination of the criminal case, the Inspector-General of Police thought that on account of the petitioner's good service it was not necessary to dismiss him and that it would be sufficient to dispense with his services. The finding of their Lordships is that the substance of the matter was that there was a divergence between the story outlined by him in the first information and his statement on oath in Court. The facts in that case appear to be entirely different from those before us. As is apparent, the petitioner in that case could never be found guilty of an act of serious moral turpitude as in the present case. Even then their Lordships did not allow renewal immediately but ordered the certificate to be renewed with effect from a subsequent date, as the petitioner had not disclosed the fact of his discharge from service in his petition for renewal.