IN RE: N. H. LOKRE PLEADER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . N.H. Lokre, a pleader has been served with a notice to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be taken against him under Section 13 (f), Legal Practitioners Act, in view of his conviction under Section 143, I. P. C. His counsel is not entitled to go behind the conviction in order to show that he had committed no offence at law. But it is necessary for us to consider whether or not the conduct of Mr. Lokre which led to his conviction necessitates disciplinary action. If the convicting judgment does not clearly show what that conduct was Mr. Lokre must receive the benefit of any doubt.

(2.) THE judgment of the Magistrate does not indicate what was the common object of the assembly. It seems probable that he considers that the assembly was unlawful because the Sub-Inspector had ordered it to disperse. This is not a correct view of the Law : vide Section 151, I. P. C., and the explanation. On the facts found by the Magistrate, namely that the Sub-Inspector had repeatedly commanded an assembly of more than 5 persons likely to cause a disturbance of the public peace to disperse and that Mr. Lokre thereafter continued in the assembly, the conviction should have been under Section 151, I. P. C. The Magistrate has however stated that it is not conclusively proved that Mr. Lokre intentionally disobeyed the order to disperse. We think he means that it is not proved that Mr. Lokre knew that his conduct was opposed to the desire of the Sub-Inspector. 'The Circle Inspector has deposed that Mr. Lokre was asking the assemblage to sit down and be peaceful. As the Magistrate says, he should have done what he was told and gone away. As it has been found that Mr. Lokre, though he acted imprudently, may have had no evil intention, we do not think his conduct is such as to make it necessary to take action against him.