In Re D, a Pleader

Courtney-Terrell, C.J.—This matter comes before us on a report of the District Judge of Bhagalpur relating to the conduct of a Pleader Babu D. The evidence has disclosed the following facts: There were certain criminal charges pending against one Babukant Chaudhri, Chaukidari, Assessor Panch, under Sections 420 and 384 of the Penal Code. In connexion with those cases certain chaukidari receipts alleged to have been granted by Babukant Chaudhri were produced before the Police. Babukant Chaudhri denied that he had in fact signed the receipts in question. Thereupon the investigating Sub-Inspector having taken specimen signatures of Babukant Chaudhri forwarded them with the disputed receipts to the Superintendent of Police for examination and they were forwarded from the office of the Superintendent of Police on 10th November 1934, to the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, by the Police Officer at Bhagalpur.

This man Babukant Chaudhri, whose conduct was under investigation in the criminal cases, is a relative of the Pleader. The Pleader made inquiries of the Court Sub-Inspector at Bhagalpur to find out who were the Officers at Patna who had to deal with the investigation of disputed writings and the Officer at Bhagalpur, imagining that the inquiries could have no sinister purpose inasmuch as they were being made by a Pleader, supplied the necessary information. The Pleader wrote down the names of the Officers at Patna and then proceeded to Patna where he had also business of another kind altogether unconnected with legal affairs. But during his visit to Patna he called at the house of Babu Sailendra Nath Sen, who is the Assistant Government Handwriting Expert and whose name had been discovered by him by his inquiries at Bhagalpur, and saw him on the verandah of his house. Babu Sailendra Nath Sen asked him on what business be had called and who he was. The Pleader then said that he had come in connexion with a matter connected with Babukant Chaudhri against whom false charges were being made and was proceeding to make inquiries as to whether a report on the genuineness of the writings had been made. This immediately excited the suspicion, and justifiably excited the suspicion of Babu Sailendra Nath Sen and he asked the Pleader whether he had come to influence him. The Pleader then got very alarmed, attempted to apologies and said that if the Police Officer thought that, he would go away at once. Nothing more was said on the matter of the handwriting and the Pleader after a few minutes desultory conversation, having nothing to do with the case of Babukant Chaudhri, left.

Now we accept the view of the District Judge who inquired into this matter that there is no proof that the Pleader complained against had any intention of influencing the expert or offering to him a bribe, but the clear and admitted fact remains that the Pleader had gone to the house, not to the office, of the Police Officer and had begun a conversation about a case in which the Police Officer was engaged in official investigation. It appears that in fact later on Babu Sailendra Nath Sen investigated the matter of the disputed handwriting and reported in favour of the accused man Babukant Chaudhri that the documents attributed to him were in fact forgeries; but that fact does not excuse in the least the conduct of the Pleader. Indeed the Police Officer, had he not reported the conversation which was begun by the Pleader, might have found himself in a most invidious position; for, had it come out that he had made a favourable report, but prior to the investigation of the matter had had an interview with the Pleader who was not there professionally but on account of family obligation had been representing the person accused, a very unfavourable opinion might have been formed of Babu Sailendra Nath Sen's trustworthiness as an expert.

Accepting the view that there was no intention to offer a bribe, that there was no intention to influence the officer, the conduct of a Pleader in visiting such an officer in such circumstances on behalf of a person, whether he be a client or a mere friend or relation the Pleader was representing, is conduct from which Police Officers must be protected and it must be clearly known to the profession. Indeed I have little doubt that it is clearly known to the profession that such conduct is, to say the least of it, highly irregular. Had we taken the view that there was any attempt to influence the Police Officer or, worse still, to offer him a bribe, the result would probably have been that the Pleader would have permanently ceased to exercise his profession. In the circumstances, however, and accepting the view of the District Judge in his favour, we must mark the disapproval of the Court of his conduct by suspending him from practice for a period of six months.

Macpherson, J.

I agree.

Fazl Ali, J.

I agree.