Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The respondent is a pleader practising at Ottappalam. On the 21st August, 1942, he was convicted under Rule 34 (6) (c) read with Rule 38 (5) of the Defence of India Rules by the Joint Magistrate of Malappuram, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. The evidence in that case showed that he had interrupted the work of the Subordinate Judges Court, Ottappalam, by shouting Congress slogans and exhorting the Subordinate judge to resign his position as a protest against the arrest of the Congress leaders. As the result of the respondents disorderly conduct the Subordinate Judge was forced to retire to his room. The respondent was then ejected from the Court. The respondent afterwards went to the Court of the District Munsiff and made a similar demonstration. In consequence he has been called upon to show cause why he should not be dealt with under Section 13 (f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. The respondent has not appeared but has written a letter to the Registrar of the Court in which he says that there is no case for action against him under the Legal Practitioners Act.

2. In effect he admits his misconduct in the two Co