AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
On a careful consideration of the evidence we think it is clear that the pleader meant that the letter should reach the hands of the Sub-Collector
as an anonymous letter and we think he aggravated his original offence by attempting to make out that he intended the letter to be signed by his
clients and he thought it was going to be so signed before it was despatched to the Sub-Collector.
On the other hand, the Pleader''s conduct in making no attempt to conceal the fact that the letter was written and sent by him although it
purports to have been written by ""one of the witnesses in this case,"" seems to show that he entirely failed to appreciate the impropriety of his Act.
The evidence establishes that the pleader wrote a letter which he did not sign, to an officer who was conducting an enquiry into a charge of
bribery against a Revenue Inspector, in which letter he made allegations which were intended to prejudice the mind of the officer in connection with
the matter which he was investigating.
We are prepared to accept the interpretation of Clause (c) of Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners'' Act (XVIII of 1879) which was adopted
by the Calcutta High Court in In the matter of Purna Chander Pal Muktear ILR 27 C. 1023 and we think the facts in the present case show other
reasonable cause, for suspending or dismissing a pleader within the meaning of this Clause.
In all the circumstances we think a suspension of the certificate for one month will meet the requirements of the case and we make an order
accordingly.