JUDGMENT

1. In this case a notice was issued to Mr. Day, a Vakil practising in Agra, to show cause why he should not be dealt with under paragraph 8 of the Letters Patent with regard to certain statements made by him in paragraphs 4, 12 and 16 of an affidavit filed in this Court in Criminal Revision No. 489 of 1923.

2. The affidavit Avas filed in support of a petition for revision ofan order passed by the Sessions Judge of Agra in a criminal appeal, in which Mr. Day had appeared for the appellants. That appeal was unsuccessful. In his affidavit Mr. Day stated that the Sessions Judge had pre-judged the appeal, that he did not wait for the records to come, and that he was so impressed with the opinion which he had already formed in the absence of the record that he did not appreciate the arguments addressed to him, and was some times inattentive. In reply to this affidavit Mr. Bennett, the Sessions Judge, stated that he might have put some notes taken from the copy of the judgment produced in the appeal, but the making of the notes did not mean that he had prejudged the case. He further stated that though the record of the case and other records had not arrived when the hearing was sta