Judgement

S. R. DAS J.: This is an appeal by special leave from an order made by a Special Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras under section 224 12 of the Indian Bar Councils Act (38 of 1926) debarring the appellant from practising as an advocate for a period of five years.

2. The material facts are these. The appellant before us is an advocate ordinarily practising at Masaulipatam. In Calendar Case No. 1 of 1949 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate s Court it Masaulipatam nine persons were charged with the offence of conveying rice from the village to other villages without permits. Accused Nos. 2 and 4 were not represented by any Advocate. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 8, all cart-men, were defended by the appellant. Accused No. 7, who initiated the proceedings out of which the present appeal arises and who is hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner", was defended by another advocate.

The case was disposed of on the 30th September, 1949. Accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 were acquitted. Accused No. 2 was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20 and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Accused No. 4 and the petitioner, accused No. 7, were also convicted and sentenced to pay, a fine of Rs. 300/each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Accused No. 8 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of the fine, to simple imprisonment for three months. Accused No. 2 paid the fine but the other three convicted persons did not.

The four convicted persons including the petitioner thereafter engaged the appellant to prefer an appeal to the Sessions Court. The appeal was presented before the Sessions Court on the 8th October, 1949 and on the same day a petition was filed on behalf of accused Nos. 4, 7 (petitioner) and 8 for an order staying the realisation of the fine. That application for stay came up before the learned Sessions Judge on the 10th October, 1949 when notice was directed to issue to the Public Prosecutor. On the 11th October, 1949 the learned Judge passed the following order:

"Suspended pending disposal of this petition. Call on 14. 10".

On the 14th October 1949 the following further order was passed:

"Execution of sentences suspended till disposal of appeal".

The appeal was posted for hearing on the 25th November 1949 and was adjourned from time to time. Eventually, it was finally heard on the 13th July 1950 when the appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentences of all the appellants were set aside.

On the 25th January 1951 the petitioner caused a registered notice (Ex. A/2) to be sent to the appellant alleging that on the 11th October 1949 the appellant had represented to him that the Court had refused to suspend the sentences and that unless the amount of fine was deposited the petitioner would be sent to jail. It was further alleged that on such representation the petitioner had on that day paid to the appellant a sum of Rs. 300 for which the appellant had passed to the petitioner a chit (Ex. A/1) under his own signature acknowledging receipt of the said sum. The chit (Ex. A/1) which is addressed to the petitioner runs as follows:

"This day, you have paid to me a sum of Rs. 300 (three hundred rupees only)".

It is signed by the appellant and below his signature appears the date 11th October 1949 and the time 5-15 P. M. is also mentioned below the signature. The allegation in the registered notice further was that the appellant had concealed from the petitioner the fact that the order for payment of fine had been suspended until the hearing of the appeal and also that the appeal had eventually been allowed. The notice ended with a threat that if the appellant failed to return the sum of Rs. 300 together with interest at 12 per cent. per annum from the 11th October 1949 up to date of payment the petitioner would be constrained, in addition to such other proceedings as he may be advised to take for