GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. RAGHUNATH SSULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the criminal case, it is true, we acquitted the pleader, Mr. Sule. But that was because the evidence fell somewhat short of the strict proof that was necessary to convict him of the offence of cheating and to show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that he was privy to the offence with the Marwadi Hazarimal. Under our disciplinary-jurisdiction at present, what we have to consider is whether the pleader has been guilty of such misbehaviour or professional misconduct as to warrant our punishing him under that jurisdiction. Here too, no doubt, as the inquiry is of a quasi-criminal character, we must have strict proof but the proof required is not of cheating but professional misconduct. In my opinion, the evidence and circumstances are sufficient to enable us to come to the conclusion, that instead of protecting the interests of his client, the pleader was in this transaction of the mortgage deliberately protecting the interests of his client's creditor in breach of his duty and that he has tried to exculpate himself by making conflicting statements in defence of his conduct.

(2.) Now, in the first place, I cannot believe Mr. Sule's defence either before the Committing Magistrate, or in the Sessions Court, or his present defence that he was ignorant of what was going on in his office as to this mortgage transaction when the deed was being drawn up, and that he did not know of its contents. It is admitted that the creditor of his client was a Marwadi moneylender residing in Thana: that the pleader was his tenant and that the Marwadi was living opposite to him. Whether he did take any part in the negotiations for the loan, or not, may be open to doubt. But it is clear beyond doubt that he was aware of all that the parties were doing and of all that took place in his office. Mr. Sule's defence is that while the deed was being written he was, no doubt, there, but that he was busy with some other work. We are not told what that work was, nor does he explain whether after the deed had been drawn up the parties went away without telling him of what had been done. And although Mr. Sale says that he cannot exactly remember what statement he made before the Police Inspector, or how much of it is true and how much of it is false, yet it is clear that the statement, which the Sub-Inspector says he made, was made. The Sub-Inspector has deposed that Mr. Sule's statement was taken down in writing word for word and that after it had been written out it was read over to him, Mr. Sule says that he was too perplexed at the time to understand or remember what he said to the Sub-Inspector. But the statement shows that before the Sub-Inspector he admitted that he knew of what had taken place in his office. Then, what was his defence before the Committing Magistrate or before the Sessions Court? Before both these tribunals he professed complete ignorance.

(3.) Upon the whole, I think, that the conclusion which has been arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge in connection with this enquiry under our disciplinary jurisdiction is correct, that Mr. Sule has been guilty of professional misconduct, in that, instead of protecting the interests of his client, he sided with the latter's money-lender, and that he was at least guilty of gross negligence and breach of duty towards his client. And although it is not proved that he was actually privy to the offence of cheating with the money-lender, still he did, by the attitude which he adopted and by his gross negligence, endeavour to further the machinations of the money-lender and thus exposed his client to considerable loss and trouble.