In The Matter Of The Application Of C. C. J. Seneviratne To Be Admitted And Enrolled An Advocate Of The Supreme Court

Present: Schneider A.C.J., Lyall Grant and Jayewardene JJ.

In the Matter of the Application of C. C. J. SENEVIRATNE to be
admitted and enrolled an Advocate of the Supreme Court.

    Advocate-Application for reinstatement-Power of the Supreme Court- Expiation of offence-Period of atonement-Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, s. 19.

The Supreme Court has power to reinstate an. Advocate, who has been disbarred, when he expiated his offence and redeemed his character. But the Court must be satisfied, before such readmission, that the period of atonement has been long enough to provide a guarantee sufficient for him to be allowed, with propriety, to return' to the practice of an honourable profession.

THIS was an application by the petitioner to be readmitted and enrolled as an Advocate of the Supreme Court. At a sessions of the Supreme Court held at Kandy in April, 1920, the petitioner and another Advocate were jointly tried and convicted of cheating under section 403 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. In July, 1921, they were released from imprisonment by the order of

His Excellency the Governor. On February 22, 1922, the Supreme court removed from office the petitioner and the other Advocate A.C.J. on the ground of their conviction.

Hayley, K. C. (with Amarasekera), in support.

S. Obeyesekere, Acting Solicitor-General (with Fonseka, C.C.), for the Crown.

December 18, 1928. SCHNEIDER A.C. J.-

This application by the petitioner above named' that he be readmitted and enrolled as an Advocate was made in the following circumstances.

After he had practised as a Proctor for a period of nearly seven years he was duly admitted and enrolled an an Advocate in February, 1917. At a sessions of this Court held at Kandy in April, 1920, he and another Advocate were jointly tried and convicted of cheating under section 403 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years. In July, 1921, both of them were released from imprisonment by ail order of His Excellency the Governor. It is alleged in the petition and the supporting affidavit, upon which this application is made, that they were so released in consequence of a pardon, but the Acting Solicitor-General who appeared at the argument and opposed the application stated that the order was nothing more than a remission of the unexpired term of the sentence. I will accept that statement in the absence of proper proof of a pardon.

In February, 1922, this Court, acting presumably in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 19 of the Courts Ordinance, 1889, to use the language of that section, " removed from office " both the petitioner and the other Advocate on the ground of their. conviction.

The present application was made in October, 1926, that is to say, within a period of less than five years from the, date of that order.
The offence of which they were convicted related to a sum of Rs. 1,000 which should have been paid to two persons with whom the petitioner and his fellow-Advocate had been brought into contact in their professional capacity. The accuracy of certain allegations in the petition was challenged by the Acting Solicitor-General. Beyond the affidavit of the petitioner there is no proof of those allegations. No report of the trial was produced. I will therefore leave those statements out of consideration with the remark that even if those statements had been accepted it would have made no difference to the order referred to below which we made on this application.

The ground upon which the application for restoration to office 1928. was made is that the petitioner had conducted himself honourably in all his undertakings since his .release from jail and had A.C.J. endeavoured to " reconstruct his life " a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document