Kemp, J.@mdashIn this case a pleader of the Sylhet Civil Court, Peary Mohun Gooho, was charged before the Judge, under s. 16, Act XX of 1865, with fraudulent and grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duties. The history of the case is as follows:--There was a riot case instituted in the Court of the Deputy Magistrate of Sylhet, in which two near relations of the Munsif of Cachar were defendants. The Munsif appears to have instructed the witness Radha Chowdry, his brother-in-law, to retain the services of a good vakeel for the purpose of defending his relatives, in the case before the Deputy Magistrate. The accused pleader admits in his answer that overtures were made to him in the first instance, not by Radha Chowdry, but by one Kalikapershad Sheam, who appears to have told the pleader that the charge was one of rioting under s. 147 of the Penal Code, and that there were no aggravating circumstances connected with the case. The pleader at first objected to attend the Deputy Magistrate''s Court on the ground that it was not etiquette for pleaders of the Judge''s Court to attend the Fauzdari Court, but he appears subsequently to have agreed to go for Rs. 200. This sum even was considered too much by Kalikapershad, for he said he would take time to consider. Subsequently, the brother-in-law of the Munsif, Radha Chowdry, appears to hare come to the pleader; all this we gather from the pleader''s own statement. He was then informed that the case was not one under s. 147, but that there was also a charge under s. 325 of grievous hurt, and further that a man was missing. Upon this Peary Mohun said that he would not go for Rs. 200 in a case of this description. Radha Chowdry then appears to have informed Peary Mohun that he had some interest in the case beyond being the talafikar in the case, inasmuch as the Munsif of Cachar was a near relation of his and of the defendants. The pleader was also told that another vakeel Doolul Baboo did not like to take a fee from the Cachar Munsif, and therefore that he would not conduct the case. Peary Mohun then states that Radha Chowdry said "whatever you want I will give you." He then agreed to go to the Fauzdari Court for Rs. 500. It was then stipulated that he would get the whole sum if all the prisoners were acquitted; that if only the Munsif''s two relations were acquitted, he would get Rs. 250, and there was also a gradation scale of fees according to the number of defendants acquitted; and it was further stipulated that, in the event of none of them being acquitted, he was only to receive a fee of Rs. 40. Now it is very clear that, if this had been a straightforward transaction on the part of the pleader, looking to the conditions and terms on which he was to be rewarded for his exertions, this large sum of Rs. 500 would have been placed in the hands of a third party to await the result of his conduct of the suit, but it is admitted that he took the whole sum, or Rs. 25 short of Rs. 500, Rs. 475, from Radha Chowdry. Subsequently, the Munsif, on being informed of the large fee that had been taken by the pleader, dispatched a telegram to Sylhet, saying that it was a most exorbitant and unheard-of fee, and giving directions to get back some of the money. It then appears that the sheristadar sent for the pleader and told him that he was a young hand, and that if he drove such hard bargains with his clients at the outset of his career, he would get a bad name, and would do himself more harm than good, and eventually, after considerable reluctance, Peary Mohun, having consulted a friend as to whether the banker Ram Lochun was a trustworthy man or not, agreed to disgorge Rs. 250 out of the Rs. 475, which he had taken from the Munsif''s brother-in-law. This sum of Rs. 250 remained at the credit of Peary Mohun Gooho in the accounts of Bam Lochun. There therefore remained still in the hands of the pleader Rs. 225; he says that of this sum Rs. 25 were paid to his mohurrir, and that Rs. 140 were paid to the brother-in-law of the Munsif as his commission, and that the balance was kept by him. The brother-in-law of the Munsif distinctly denies the receipt of the Rs. 140, and he also states that the receipt which has been put in by the pleader, the signature on which is wanting, having been torn out from the body of that receipt, is not genuine. The Judge, after carefully considering the evidence, is of opinion that the pleader Peary Mohun Gooho has told a falsehood in alleging that he paid Rs. 140 to the brother-in-law of the Munsif, and taking into consideration the youth of Peary Mohun Gooho, the short time he has been practising as a vakeel, and his ignorance of his duties to his clients, he has recommended that the pleader be suspended from practice for a period of one year. We think that we cannot say that the Judge has come to a wrong conclusion on the evidence in respect of this receipt, but beyond that, even supposing there was a doubt as to whether this receipt was ever executed by the brother-in-law of the Munsif, and as to whether the money really passed, we think there are other circumstances in the case which disclose on the part of the pleader conduct of a fraudulent and grossly improper character. It is clear from his own admission that he had not earned the money when he induced the brother-in-law of the Munsif, on the understanding of receiving a very large portion of the fee in the shape of commission, to make over to him the whole sum before he had taken any action whatever in the case. It was only the remonstrance''s of the sheristadar, and the action of the Munsif, a Government officer, in the matter, which induced the pleader to give up any portion of the sum which he had taken from the Munsif''s brother-in-law, and even in giving up the larger portion of the fee, he took very good care, as far he possibly could, that that sum should not remain in the hands of any person connected with the Munsif, but should be placed at his credit in deposit with a third party. If the man Radha Chowdry had been a mooktear of the Court, even then looking to the nature of the case, and the position of the pleader in the Zilla Court, we should consider the fee a very exorbitant one, and the commission of the mooktear very unusual, still we should not have looked upon the offence committed as one of so serious a nature as we think it is. But when the party was not a mooktear of the Court, but a relation of the party, at whose expense the services of the pleader were to be retained, we think that the conduct of the pleader in this case in inducing the Munsif''s relation to borrow money, for he was obliged to borrow money to meet the exorbitant fee of the pleader, well knowing that he was not a mooktear of the Court, that he was a relation of the Munsif, and that the inducement he held out to him to join in this exorbitant demand upon the Munsif, was that he would get the large sum of Rs. 140 out of the amount which would be so taken from the Munsif, is highly reprehensible. We confirm the order of the Judge, and suspend the pleader Peary Mohun Gooho for a period of one year, to count from the date on which the Judge''s order was passed.
Pontifex, J.
2. I am of the same opinion. In this case it seems to me from the whole conduct of the suspended pleader, if not for the reasons mentioned by the Judge, that it would be undesirable to interfere with the sentence of one year''s suspension passed upon the pleader by the District Judge. If in these cases the mooktear is paid for his service by his employer, and in addition receive, without the knowledge of his employer, a percentage or commission from the pleader, it seems to me that the mooktear might be answerable, not only in the Civil Court, but also in the Criminal Court, on the action of his employer, to a charge of obtaining money from him improperly.
