The judgment establishes the importance of upholding professional conduct and the jurisdiction of subordinate courts to hold inquiries into alleged misconduct by legal practitioners.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. This case presents some unusual features. The Court is called upon in the first place to consider whether the respondent, Mr. C. S. Venkatachariar, a pleader practising in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram, has been guilty of professional misconduct. In the second place, it is called upon to decide whether the person who lodged the complaint against him, Mr. R. Sivaramakrishna Deekshathar, another pleader practising in that Court, is also guilty of professional misconduct. Charges were framed by the District Munsiff of Chidambaram, against both the respondent and the complainant. The District Munsiff has presented a report to the effect that the respondent is not guilty of the charges framed against him, but that the complainant is. This report is concurred in by the District Judge of South Arcot. The District Munsiff considered that the conduct of the complainant had been such as to warrant the cancellation of his sanad. The District Judge considered, however, that suspension for three years would be a fitting penalty.

2. S. Nataraja Aiyar, the complainants son, is married to one Jayalakshmi Animal and the marriage has proved to be an unhappy one. On the 14th August, 1939, on the instructions of Jayalakshmi Ammal, a pleader wrote to her husband demanding the payment of Rs. 15 per month for her maintenance. This demand was not complied with and the wife then instituted proceedings under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the 1st November, 1939, the Magistrate ordered the husband to pay to his wife Us. 5 per month. In those proceedings the complainant, in his professional capacity, represented his son. The passing of this order was followed by the institution of a suit by the husband in the Court of the District Munsiff of Chidambaram for a decree setting aside the order on the ground that the wife had committed adultery. The complainant, again acting in his professional capacity, appeared on behalf of his son and gave evidence in support of his sons case. In fact he was the only witness in the case. Why the complainant gave evidence on behalf of his son in a case in which he was appearing in his professional capacity has not been explained. A person who is-appearing as counsel should not give evidence as, a witness. If in the course of the proceedings it is discovered that he is in a position to give evidence and it is desirable that he should do so, his proper course is to retire from the case in his professional capacity. The charges framed against the complainant have, however, nothing to do with this incident and there is no need to discuss it further.

3. On the 20th January,, 1941, the husbands suit was dismissed, but on the 27th February, he applied for a review of the District Munsiffs judgment. This application was dismissed by an order, dated the 8th March. A month before, the complainant had filed a petition in the District Munsiffs Court charging the respondent with professional misconduct in that he had misled the Court and had tutored his client to give false evidence in the suit. On the 10th February the complainant filed a second petition in which he charged the respondent with a further act of professional misconduct. On this occasion the charge was that the respondent had filed a certificate in which he stated that he had received his fee, whereas he had not.

4. In affidavits filed in denial of the charges made against him, the respondent alleged that the complainant had intimated that he would drop the complaints of professional misconduct if he would pay a sum, of Rs. 75 and that he would be prepared to accept even less than this amount if the respondent, did not oppose the application for a review of the judgment dismissing the suit filed by the complainants son for a decree setting aside the order passed against him under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This allegation of the respondent was supported by the affidavits of fo