KRISHNASAMI AIYAR Vs. STAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The order is dated February 28, 1912. Under that order the appellant, who was a vakil of the Court, was suspended from practice for six months on the ground of professional misconduct.

(2.) THE circumstances of the case have been resumed in a very careful judgment by the learned judges of the Court, below. Their Lordships only review them further for the purpose of illustrating the one point which appears to them to be conclusive of the present appeal.

(3.) IN the present case a certain advance was made, or required to be made, in order to enable printing to be done as Court printing. A correspondence accordingly ensued between this vakil and his client; and it is a well-founded observation made in the anxious argument presented to their Lordships from the Bar that that correspondence was mainly conducted by a manager and a clerk of the vakil, and not by the vakil personally. That, however, is not completely true, because one of these letters, an important one, of September 8, 1908, was written by the vakil himself. Further, the vakil in the present case, the present appellant, was, of course, charged with the knowledge-that it was necessary, not only that the money should be received from his client, but that in common honesty that money should be paid to the registrar for the discharge of the printing clues. This was not done. Statement after statement is made by the manager and clerk in the course of this correspondence containing a false narrative of what had been proceeding, and constituting a fraudulent deception of the client.