Full Judgment
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.
1. This pleader over six years ago committed a grave breach of professional conduct and his sanad was taken away and cancelled by this Court. He has now filed a petition asking us to restore to him that sanad. By his petition he not only shows that he is very repentant for what he did ; but he promises to regulate his conduct in future along strictly professional lines.
2. Mr. Raste has in fact been removed from practice for more than six years ; and, in our judgment, neither the interests of justice nor the public interest nor the interests of the profession demand that clemency should be withheld from him.
3. A question, however, arises as to the proper form of order which is to be made in cases of this character in which an order for the removal from practice has been made and the sanad has been delivered up and cancelled in the office of this High Court. We accordingly adjourn this matter in order that counsel may consider the proper form of order which we ought to make : the pleader may, however, in the meantime resume practice.
4. January 24. This matter came before us on January 13, and on1 that occasion we considered that the punishment which this pleader has undergone was in the circumstances sufficient, and that neither the interests of justice, nor the public interest, nor the interests of the profession demanded that clemency should be withheld from him. But having made that decision and having directed that the pleader was at liberty to resume practice, we adjourned the matter in order that counsel might consider what was the correct form of the order to be made in these circumstances. The matter has now been fully argued before us.
5. It is necessary to look at Section 25 of the Bombay Pleaders Act of 1920. Under that section the High Court may ' suspend or remove from practice, or may 'ifine or reprimand, a pleader on reasonable cause.' In this case the learned Chief Justice says at the end of his judgment delivered on February 25, 1937 :
I think, however, that the learned District Judge was right in taking the view that the evidence showed complicity between these two pleaders to betray their client. That being so I think that we should not be justified in imposing on 'Mr. Raste any lesser sentence than that imposed on Mr. Jcshi, He must also be removed from practising as a pleader.
Both the pleaders must present their sanads to the District Court for cancellation, and they must pay the costs of the Government Pleader
6. That was done, and we have in fact the sanad before us which has been stamped with a cancellation mark. In my judgment, in a case in which a pleader is removed from practice that is the correct way for the order to be carried out. Cancellation in fact is equivalent to destruction of the sanad or making it void. There iss the other power vested in the Court, namely, to suspend, and in those cases it would be proper for the sanad to be impounded by the Court, so that it can, if subsequent circumstances justify, be restored to the pleader. The sanad in this case having been cancelled, the question now arises : how this pleader is to be readmitted to practice.
7. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act provide as to how a pleader is to be admitted ; but there is nothing in the Act which provides for readmission in a case such as the present one. But this Court has an inherent jurisdiction in these matters, and it exercises a general superintendence over its officers. The pleader in question is qualified for admission, and the proper order, in my judgment, will be that he be readmitted! to the roll and be permitted to take out a new sanad. The result will be that his sanad will bear the date on which it ie taken out. The petitioner must pay the costs of the Government Pleader.
Divatia, J.
9. I agree.