O. H. MOOTHAM, CJ.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the District Judge of Kanpur concerning the conduct of a Vakil practising in his court. The facts which are not in dispute, are these:

( 2 ) IN the year 1945 the Development Board, Kanpur, acquired certain premises belonging to two persons, Branhmadin and his brother Suraj Prasad, and a sum of Rs. 6,292/2/ was deposited with the District Judge for payment to them as compensation. Brahmadin and Suraj Prasad raised a dispute as to the amount of compensation and also sought to obtain the release of their premises. Their claims were rejected and in 1954 the premises were demolished. Thereafter they applied for payment to them of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 6, 292/2/ only to be informed that this amount had been withdrawn on behalf of Brahma Din by the Vakil in question in the year 1948.

( 3 ) WHAT happened in 1948 was that a person, who admittedly was not Brahma Din, approached the Vakil, and after informing him that he was Brahma Din and that both his brother Suraj prasad and his brothers wife were dead, asked the Vakil to act on his behalf and to withdraw the money then on deposit with the District Judge. The Vakil prepared an application on behalf of his client on the 29th March, 1948, for the repayment of the sum of Rs. 3,686/12/ part of the larger sum of Rs. 6,292/ 2/. The application was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by the client on the same date. A further affidavit was sworn by the client on the 18th May, 1948, in support of his claim for the remaining sum of Rs. 2605/6/ -. The affidavit in each case is in substantially the same terms, the deponent stating that he was Brahma Din son of Hanuman Vaishya, resident of Jhakar Kati, kanpur, that he was the owner of the house which had been acquired by the Development Board, that his brother Suraj Prasad and the latters wife had died in the year 1947, and that he accordingly was the only person entitled to withdraw the amount awarded as compensation. Each of these applications contains an endorsement in the handwriting of the Vakil: "identified Brahma Din" followed by the signature of the Vakil. On the strength of these affidavits the Vakil withdrew the two sums of Rs. 3,686/12/- and Rs 2,605/6/-and paid them to his client.

( 4 ) THE question which arises in this case is whether the Vakil in identifying his client as Brahma din was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of the Legal Practitioners Act. The Vakil does not deny that the person who instructed him was not in fact Brahma Din, but he says that he acted throughout in good faith believing that he was. It is not in dispute that the client was not known to the Vakil prior to the date upon which he was first instructed in the matter, that the client produced no evidence of his identity other than certain rough notes and papers relating to the claim he was making and that the Vakil made no independent enquiry of any kind as to the clients identity. It has been contended before us on behalf of the Vakil that remiss as his conduct was it did not amount to more than negligence, and that negligence however gross does not constitute professional misconduct. In view of the laxity which unfortunately prevails in many parts of this state with regard to the identification of persons and the importance of the question to which this case gives rise, we desired the assistance of the Advocate General or the Standing Counsel and the latter has also addressed us.

( 5 ) WE have given the matter our careful consideration and, in our opinion, the conduct of the vakil in identifying his client as Brahma Din goes beyond mere negligence. The statement made by the Vakil at the foot of each affidavit, "identified Brahma Din", without any qualification amounts, in our opinion, to a statement by the Vakil that he knows the deponent to be Brahma din, and that, in the circumstances of this case, was a false statement; and must have been known to the Vakil to be false. The Vakil knew t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document