KASHI NATH RATHO Vs. UCPATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Munsif of Berhampur made through the District Judge of Ganjam-Puri under Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act. On 25th April 1938, one Kashi Nath Ratho filed a petition in the Court of the District Judge of Ganjam-Puri complaining against the conduct of the opposite party U.C. Patnaik, a pleader practising in the Courts at Berhampur. As the misconduct was alleged to have taken place in the Court of the learned Munsif, the learned District Judge sent the application to that Court. The petitioner Kashi Nath Ratho did not himself file the petition in the Court of the learned Munsif, but on receipt of the petition from the Court of the learned District Judge the learned Munsif took cognizance of it and examined Kashi Nath Ratho on oath.

(2.) Notice was sent to the opposite party, "U.C. Patnaik, who duly appeared and filed a written statement. The learned Munsif heard evidence on behalf of the petitioner and the opposite party and eventually came to the conclusion that the pleader was guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty. The report was for warded to the learned District Judge, who heard counsel on behalf of the parties. He came to a different conclusion and held that the: pleader was not guilty of any misconduct. The learned District Judge has forwarded the two reports to this Court, and we have heard counsel on behalf of the Pleader. The Advocate-General of Orissa, appeared through the Public Prosecutor for Orissa, Mr. G.P. Das. The latter informed the Court that he had been instructed to support the view taken by the learned District Judge. Consequently, no argument has been addressed to us on behalf of the view held by the learned Munsif. Sir Sultan Ahmed who appeared for Mr. U.C. Patnaik has dealt with the case very fully and has placed quite fairly before the Court all the materials which were before the lower Courts.

(3.) The petitioner, Kashi Nath Ratho, is a professional money-lender, and in the year 1935, he had instructed the opposite party to appear for him in certain execution cases. On 8 May 1935, Mr. Patnaik with, drew from Court a sum of Rs. 1065-1-0 which had been deposited to the credit of the petitioner. On 8 October 1935, Mr. Patnaik withdrew another sum of Rs. 460-15-0 which had been likewise deposited to the credit of the petitioner. These two sums had been deposited in Court by a judgment-debtor in execution case No. 76 of 1935. On 14 August 1937, Mr. Patnaik withdrew from Court a sum of Rs. 30 which had been deposited to the credit of the petitioner by a judgment-debtor in execution case No. 149 of 1937. It is common ground that Mr. Patnaik did not pay these sums over to the petitioner for some considerable time. On 4 November 1935, he paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 400 out of the sum of Rs. 460-15-0 which he had withdrawn on 8 October 1935. The next two payments were of Rs. 20 and Rs. 5 which were made on 12 June 1936, and 14 January 1937 respectively. It is admitted that these two payments were made to cover the travelling and other expenses of the petitioner. On 5 September 1937, a payment of Rs. 100 was made by the pleader to the petitioner out of which the petitioner had appropriated Rs. 10 towards his travelling and other expenses.