JUDGMENT

Ashutosh Mookerjee, Acting C.J.

1. On the 11th July 1919 Satis Chandra Chakrabarti, the petitioner in the present Rule, made an application to this Court and prayed that disciplinary action might be taken against Mr. Ramdayal De. a Vakil of this Court, who had acted on behalf of one Chandra Kumar Chakrabarti with whom he had been involved in a protracted litigation, It is not necessary for our present purpose to narrate the history or review the progress of that litigation; it is sufficient to state that the application made by the petitioner contained grave charges of misconduct against Mr. De. The application was supported by an affidavit which recited that the facts mentioned in the petition were true to the knowledge of the deponent except those contained in paragraphs 10, 25 and 27, and that a part of paragraphs 4, 47 and 50 were true to his information and belief. The application was heard in the first instance by Fletcher and Duval, JJ. On the 17th July 1919 the matter was referred to the Government Pleader for inquiry and report. On the 25th July, Mr. De was called upon to submit an explanation within three weeks, which he did, on the 10th November 1919. The question was thereafter considered by Sanderson, C.J., and Flecther, J., who, on the 3rd December 1919, came to the conclusion that no disciplinary action could be taken upon the application. On the 15th March 1920 Mr. De moved this Court for sanction to prosecute Satis Chandra Chakrabarti for offences under Sections 181 and 193, Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him in respect of the statements made in paragraphs 52 and 22 of the application to this Court on the 11th July 1919. This application for sanction was refused by Sanderson, C.J., and Walmsley, J. Meanwhile, on the 24th February 1920, Mr. De had lodged a complaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate against Satish Chandra Chakrabarti with a view to prosecute him for an offence u/s 500, Indian Penal Code, in respect of the following nine statements selected from the petition of the 11th July 1919:

(1) That the said Vakil, when the suit No. 53 of 1910 (Probate Case) was pending in the Judge's Court at Chittagong after remand, offered money to Prasanna Kumar Singh, the Kabiraj, the witness No. 1, who deposed on 20th July 1914 and Radha Govinda Bhattacharyya, witness No. 9, who deposed on 23rd July 1914, to depose falsely, and paid Probhat Chandra Bose, witness No. 10, to depose falsely and strongly on behalf of his side.

(2) That the said Vakil, since the institution of the pending Revocation Case No. 11 of 1918, frequently goes to Chittagong and there bribed some of the witnesses and attempted to bribe the others, amongst Romjan Ali, Dalilar Rohman, Uma Charan Dhupi, Achlam Khan, Sarada Kumar Dey, who were served with summonses. He also tried to raise a few witnesses on payment of money to adduce false evidence against the petitioner.

(3) That Babu Ramdayal De, who was always bent upon wrongly getting hold of the property of the testator, instigated the said decree-holders (Ramdayal Pal and Bhairab Chandra De) to execute their decree for about Rs. 6,000, knowing well that it would not be probable for your petitioner to pay up at once such a large amount, in which case Babu Ramdayal De would be able to purchase some of the properties of the testator and father of the petitioners and other executors at a small price.

(4) That Babu Ramdayal De, intentionally, and, in order to win the case, misprinted in the paper-book (of Appeal from Original Decrees Nos. 438 and 580 of 1914) many other things (that is, than those referred to in paragraphs 44 and 45) which were material for the case.

(5) When the judgment of the Honourable High Court was forwarded to the District Judge, it transpired that the names of Babu Ramdayal De and the first point of appeal decided were of different ink and of different hand, thereby probably Babu Ramdayal De tried to omit his name from list of appellant'