JUDGMENT

Thom, J. - On January 24, 1934, notice was ordered by this Court to go to Mr. O. to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for professional misconduct.

2. For some reasons or other notice did not go to Mr. C. but the matter of the conduct was referred for enquiry to the Bar Council. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice appointed a Committee consisting of Mr. P.L. Banerji, Dr. N.C. Vaish and Mr. Murli Manohar, to enquire into Mr. C's conduct. Mr. C's conduct in connection with a certain case had been adversely commented on by the learned Judge who directed that notice should go to him on January 24, 1934.

3. The facts may be briefly stated. They are fully set out in the report of the Bar Council Committee. Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a citizen of Cawnpore died upon November 23, 1932. After his death an application for letters of administration with a copy of the will of the deceased, dated November 20, 1932, was made on May 2, 1933, in the High Court by Mr. W.C. de Noronha, a son of the deceased. One Mrs. Peters, who, it appears, had nursed Mr. Noronha through the long illness that preceded his death entered a caveat upon July 17, 1933. Mrs. Peters opposed the grant of letters of administration to the applicant, filed a written statement in support of her allegations against the grant of letters of administration. It is unnecessary at this stage to go into the history of this written statement. The learned Judge before whom the application was made did not consider that the written statement complied with the provisions of the CPC and be directed that a proper written statement be filed by Counsel for Mrs. Peters. In compliance with the direction of the learned Judge a written statement was filed upon November 24, 1933. In this statement there are certain charges made against the sons and son-in-law of the late Mr. Noronha and against Mr. Lyde who was then Joint Magistrate in Cawnpore and Mr. Bhasin, an Advocate practicing in Cawnpore. These allegations have been grouped under four heads: In Re: A Vakil, AIR 1925 All 641 Undue influence, and (4) Murder. In their report the Bar Council Committee stated.

There can be no doubt that allegations of conspiracy, forgery, and murder were made against the sona and son-in-law of the late Mr. Noronha and that further undue influence was alleged against Mr. L.G. Lyde, Joint Magistrate of Cawnpore, and forgery against Mr. Bhasin, an Advocate of Cawnpore.

4. I do not consider it, necessary to deal with the evidence upon which the charges of undue influence against the sons and sons-in-law of the late Mr. Noronha were based. In my opinion Mr. C. who was Mrs. Peter's legal adviser, and who accepts now full responsibility for the charges made in the written statement, had undoubtedly in his "possession sufficient materials to entitle him to make allegations of undue influence against the sons and sons-in-law of the late Mr. Noronha. this Court is not asked at this stage to decide whether that evidence is sufficient to establish the allegation of undue influence, but, to my mind, there is no doubt whatever that Mr. C. was in possession of information which entitled him to make an allegation of undue influence against the sons and sons-in-law of Mr. Noronha. The charge of undue influence against the Joint Magistrate and the charge of murder against the sons and sons-in-law of the late Mr. Noronha and the charge of forgery against Mr. Bhasin stand, however, in my judgment, in a different position.

5. It is not disputed that on November 20, 1932, the Joint Magistrate went to the house of the late Mr. Noronha, that he remained in the house for a number of hours and that, before he left, it was announced that Mr. Noronha had executed a will. Mr. C. maintains that he was entitled to make the charge of undue influence against the Joint Magistrate on the following facts, viz: firstly, Mr. Noronha had been an accused person shortly before the execution of the will on November 20, in the Joint Magistrate'