MITHULAL Vs. SHRI CHHAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a proceeding under sec. 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act against Shri Chhaganlal, a second grade pleader, practising at Kapasin District Pratapgarh. The allegations made against him were that he was carrying on a money-lending business, and was dealing in cloth, petroleum and other sundry articles, and was also running a cinema business and was its proprietor and manager. It was further alleged that under these circumstances, it was not possible for the said pleader to attend to his professional work properly and conscientiously. On this complaint having been received, a notice was issued to him to show cause why his license should not be suspended, and the matter was referred to the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh for verification and report. It appears that a similar complaint was presented to the District and Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh, who has also made a reference to this Court. The findings of the learned District and Sessions Judge are that the first two allegations made against the said pleader have not been proved. As regards the third allegation, viz , that Shri Chhaganlal was carrying on a cinema business, and that he was its proprietor and manager, the learned District & Sessions Judge has found that this allegation was correct. It was urged, however, before the learned District & Sessions Judge, and the same submission has been made in this Court on behalf of Shri Chhaganlal, that the cinema business has been started by his mother for the benefit of his son Sohanlal, who was developing communist ideas, to provide him with some kind of occupation so that he may be weaned of his communistic proclivities; but Sohanlal had run away from Kapasin after working for a few months, and in these circumstances there was left no other alternative for the said pleader than to see to the management of the cinema business himself. It was further submitted that when Sohanlal had returned after some time, Shri Chhaganlal had left the management and he has submitted an affidavit in support of his statement. It appears that he ceased his connection with the cinema business in February, 1952. It may be pointed out in this connection, however, that the complaint made in this Court is dated 16. 7. 51, and a report received from the District Magistrate, Chittorgarh, dated 26th December, 1951, also shows that the said pleader held a licence for exhibiting cinematograph films at Kapasin throughout 1951 in his own name, which fact is indeed admitted by him. THIS shows that he dissociated himself from the cinema business after a complaint had been made against him and an inquiry had been initiated in the matter. We are, therefore, satisfied that he was carrying on a cinema business and held a temporary licence for exhibiting cinematograph films at Kapasin from 29th November, 1950, for a year i. e. , up to the end of November, 1951. The explanation given by him is not at all convincing, and we do not attach any importance to it. In any case, it was his duty to have brought the said matter to the notice of the High Court which may have passed such orders on it thought fit. In this connection we may refer to Rule 12 of the Rules which were in force in the High Court of the former State of Udaipur regarding the admission, removal or suspension of Advocates and Vakils practising or entitled to practise in that Court and the courts subordinate thereto. The relevant portion of this Rule reads as follows: - "any person, who having been admitted as an Advocate or Vakil shall. . . . . . enter into any trade or business. . . . . shall give notice thereof to the High Court which may thereupon suspend such Advocate or Vakil from practice, or pass such orders on it as it may think fit. " we are, therefore, of opinion that the said pleader has been guilty of professional misconduct.

(2.) THE only question that remains for us to decide is what punishment we should impose upon the said pleader. We are clearly of the opinion that those who enter the legal profession cannot be allowed to carry on any other profession trade or business that a contrary practice would be wholly inconsistent with the correct traditions of the legal profession, and that any other view would be in the highest degree injurious to the interest of the profession and to the interest of the public. We are, however, informed that the said pleader has been practising for the last 14 years, and that there has been no complaint against him from any of his clients so far. We are inclined, therefore, to take a lenient view of the matter and consider that it would be enough if we suspend him from practice for a period of three months from this date. We trust that this case would serve as a warning to him and generally to other members of the legal profession, and stop them from indulging in such activities in future. Courts concerned will be immediately informed of this order. We pass no order as to costs. .