(Mukhtar) Manzur-ul-Haq vs The King-Emperor

Dawson-Miller, C.J.—The petitioner in this case is a Mukhtar practising in the District of Bhagalpur. He was charged by the Sessions Judge with certain offences under the Legal Practitioners Act. The offences were of such a nature that they came within clause (a) or (b) of section 13 of that Act. The offences, if they were committed at all, were committed in the Court of the Sub-divisional Officer during the course of a criminal prosecution. The criminal case was eventually committed for trial to the Court of the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge afterwards drew up a charge u/s 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act against the Mukhtar. The nature of the charge speaking generally was that the Mukhtar had, in the course of the criminal proceedings before the Sub-divisional Officer, filed certain documents on behalf of the complainant in that case without having proper instructions and without being engaged as a Mukhtar in the case. It is unnecessary to go into the facts in connection with the charges against the Mukhtar and we have purposely refrained from doing so, but it seems to us that the point raised on his behalf in the present proceedings, namely, that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to take action u/s 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act must succeed. The offences with which the Mukhtar is charged were not committed in the Court of the Sessions Judge at all. They were committed in the Magistrate''s Court and it seems to us that the case is governed entirely by the decision in King-Emperor v. Satyendra Nath Bay (1920) 1 P.L.T. 379: (1920) Pat. 225: 21 Cri. L.J. 613: 57 I.C. 277. That was a case where the enquiry contemplated by section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act was made not by the presiding officer of the Court in which the misconduct was alleged but by the presiding officer of a superior Courts and in that case the High Court, when the matter was referred to it, refused to take action upon that account. In these circumstances it seems to us that according to the ruling of this Court the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to hold the enquiry and the proceedings ought to be set aside.