IN RE VERSUS Vs. CH RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ch. Ram Singh having been duly enfolded as a Pleader started practising somewhere a 1948 at and, In the month of Jan. 1951 he elected a member of the local legislative assembly and as he was later included in the Council of Ministers of Patiala & East Punjab States Union, the operation of his licence was ended by the order of the High Court dated 1952. On 12-3-1953 Ch. Ram Singh applied for the restoration of his licence because he had ceased to be Minister & wanted to resume practice at the Before any order could be passed on Ch. Singh's application, it was brought to my notice that not only the election of Ch. Ram Singh as a member of the legislative assembly of the State had been set aside but he had been disqualified for being a member of Parliament or Legislature of any State for a period of six years because he was guilty of major corrupt practices. As a perusal of the order of the Election Tribunal which was published in the Gazette,of India Extraordinary Part II Section 3 dated 21st and 1953 (pages 477 to 491) showed that the Tribunal had held that he had inter alia made false statement and further that he did not act in an honest, straightforward and upright manner, the Justice ordered a notice to issue to him to Show cause why he should not be dismissed and debarred from practicing as a pleader. The for-M'l11954 Pepsu/11 and 12 I charge framed against Ch. Ram Singh is appendix A Of this order. After Ch. Ram Singh submitted his written reply the enquiry into the matter was entrusted to the Bench.

(2.) The enquiry is under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act which lays down that High Court may after such enquiry as it thinks fit suspend or dismiss any pleader or mukhtar holding a certificate who is adjudged guilty of any of the acts enumerated in Clauses (a) to (e) of the Section or for any other reasonable cause under Clause (f) of the. Section. The words of Clause (f) are very wide. It was once held by the Calcutta High Court that the clause must be read ejusdem generis with the preceding clauses, but a different view was taken by the Madras High Court in - In the matter of A.G. Ganapathi Sastri and T. V. KrishnaswamiIyer 19 MLR 504 (A) and since then almost all the High Courts in India have expressed the view that the words "for Anr. sufficient cause" are not limited to misconduct of a strictly professional character and that the operation of Clause (f) Section 13 is not confined to misconduct of which a practitioner may be found guilty in his professional capacity but embrace all cases which may afford reasonable grounds for a suspension or dismissal. Reference in this connection may be made among Ors. to - 'In the matter of Rasik Lal Nag' AIR 1917 Cal 428 (B) and - Crown V/s. Jatindra Mohan ,1950 AIR(Dac) 3(C). The same view was expressed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in - Shankar Ganesh V/s. Secy of State , 1922 AIR(PC) 351 (D). - 'In Re S. Pleader's conduct' AIR 1929 Lah 803 (2) (E), a lawyer was suspended for three months because he had made one statement before the police in the course of an investigation of an offence and made a diametrically opposite statement in the witness-box when the case went to Court.

(3.) In fairness to the Respondent it may be mentioned that he did not raise any technical objection to these proceedings. His defence was that no action against him could be. taken on the basis of the order of the Election Tribunal and their findings because (a) they were vague and indefinite and (b) they were far-fetched and were not supported by any evidence on record.