IN RE: VISHNU MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 6th June 1942 Sheoram and Tukaram were convicted in the Court of Mr. K. Khan, Naib-Tahsildar and Magistrate of the third class, Mehkar, and sentenced to small fines. Mr. K. T. Sangle was their counsel in that case. On 14th February 1943 Sheoram and Tukaram put in an application to the Deputy Commissioner stating that they had paid nearly Rs. 50 to 60 to Mr. Sangle but he had failed to win the case for them. The Deputy Commissioner apparently sent this application, which disclosed no misconduct on the part of Mr. Sangle, to the Sub-divisional Officer for inquiry and report. I do not. know under what provision of law, if any, the Deputy Commissioner purported to act, but apparently he had the Legal Practitioners' Act in view because there is a letter on record from the District and Sessions Judge dated 5th March 1943, pointing out that under Section 14 of that Act the inquiry should be made by the Magistrate in whose Court the alleged misconduct took place. On this the Deputy Commissioner transferred the inquiry on 24th April 1943 from the Sub-divisional Officer, who had not begun it, to the Naib-Tahsildar, Mr. Khan. On 26th April 1943 and 27th April 1943 the Naib-Tahsildar recorded the evidence of Sheoram and the witnesses adduced by him, and on 28th April 1943 he submitted a report to the District Magistrate, stating that he was convinced that Mr. Sangle was guilty of fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties and recommended that pending the inquiry Mr. Sangle should be suspended under Section 14, Legal Practitioners' Act, as otherwise he would hamper the investigation and influence the witnesses by all possible fair and foul means. How suspension was going to prevent tampering with the witnesses is not apparent. The Deputy Commissioner forwarded the report to the District Judge asking him to decide whether the inquiry should be conducted by the District Judge himself or by Mr. Khan. The District and Sessions Judge replied that the inquiry should be conducted by the Court in which the alleged misconduct was said to have taken place. Mr. Khan then framed charges against Mr. Sangle and began an inquiry under Section 14, Legal Practitioners' Act. Mr. Sangle has applied for a transfer of the inquiry to some other Court.

(2.) SECTION 14, Legal Practitioners' Act, provides that if any pleader practising in any subordinate Court is charged in such Court with misconduct, the presiding officer shall send him a copy of the charge and a notice that on a date appointed such charge will be taken into consideration; subsequently the presiding officer is required to record all evidence properly produced in support of the charge or by a pleader and to adjudicate on the charge. In In re Rabindrachandra Chatterjee A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 484 it was held that the District Judge was entitled to institute proceedings under Section 14 of the Act against a pleader practising in his Court, even if the alleged misconduct had not taken place entirely in that Court, but it was also held that the charge need not be made only in that Court in which the alleged misconduct had taken place. That decision was dissented from in U Thein Nyun v. District Superintendent of Police, Maubin A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 158, where it was held that only the Court which tried the case in which the misconduct was alleged to have occurred was entitled to' take action under Section 14. A Special Bench of the Patna High Court in In re A, a Mukhtar A.I.R. 1938 Pat. 17 expressed the view that the decision of the Calcutta High Court was perfectly correct and in accord with the plain meaning of Sections 13 and 14, Legal Practitioners Act. I must confess that I find some difficulty in construing Section 14, but it appears to me that to mean that the enquiry should be conducted by the presiding officer of the Court which tried the case in which the alleged misconduct occurred and that the view expressed by Page C.J. in U Thein Nyun v. District Superintendent of Police, Maubin A.I.R. 1936 Rang. 158 is correct; otherwise it would be possible for a pleader who has committed misconduct in one Court in a district to be charged for such misconduct in any other Court in the district.