BADRI NARAIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Badri Narain, was enrolled as a Pleader on 14-4-1925, and he set up his practice in the Courts at Arrah. He continued in practice there up till 31-12-1950. It is alleged in the petition that his wife fell ill about that time which grew so serious and caused hint so much, mental worry that he found it difficult to continue his practice. Accordingly, he did not apply for the renewal of his pleader's licence for a number of years after 1950, and he desired to find some other suitable job for the support of himself and his family. He failed, however, to find any suitable job, and ultimately made an application before the District Judge of Shahabad who forwarded it to the High Court by letter dated 23-5-1958. Bv letter No. 7760 dated 19-8-1958, the Registrar of this Court intimated to the petitioner that the High Court had refused to renew his licence. The present petition was accordingly filed by him under Section 7 read with Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act on 31-8-1959.

(2.) The petitioner has stated that he apprehends that the High Court has refused the renewal of licence to him on account of an incident which happened in course of his practice in the year 1950. In that year he was prevailed upon by one Sheodeep Babu of the Arrah Bar, a senior colleague of the petitioner, that he should grant a certificate to one Dhurandhar Singh saving that a sum of Rs. 4000 to 5000 had been paid to Sri Indradeo Narain, Pleader, by Dhurandhar Singh on behalf of judgment debtor in Execution Case No. 3 of 1947 pending in the Court of the Subordinate Judge I, Arrah, and Sri Indradeo Narain handed over that amount to a certain person standing there. It may be stated that there were three such statements made by different pleaders, one being the petitioner, and the other two being Srj Brijbanshi Sahay and Sri S. Azimuddin Ahmad. The decree-holder, however, made an application that he had not received any amount in respect of the decree, which was put into execution in Execution Case No. 3 of 1947, and accordingly Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 1950 was started. The petitioner was examined in that case, and therein he stated as follows in his examination-in-chief :

(3.) It may be mentioned that the statement made bv the petitioner in. Miscellaneous Case No. 44 of 1950 repudiating the previous statement made by him to the effect that a sum of Rs. 4000 to 5,000 had been paid by Dhurandhar Singh to Sri Indradeo Narain was not acted upon by the learned Subordinate Judge and the original statement, referred to above, was relied upon as true. An appeal was, however, preferred against that to this Court, which was numbered as Miscellaneous Appeal 322 of 1952. and which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Sinha and Dayal JJ. on 28-2-1957. Their Lordships allowed the appeal bv the decree-holder, set aside the judgment of the Court below and held that, in fact, nothing was paid to Sri Indradeo Narain, Pleader, as alleged in the aforesaid statement by the petitioner and also by Sri Brijbanshi Sahay and Sri S. Azimuddin Ahmad, While coming to that conclusion their Lordships made serious strictures on the conduct of the petitioner as also of the two other pleaders, who had made similar statements supporting the factum of payment on behalf of the judgment debtor by Dhurandhar Singh to Sri Indradeo Narain. The remark made by C.P. Sinha, J. runs as follows :