Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Emperor Vs. K.C.B., a Pleader

Emperor vs K.C.B., a Pleader

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Dec 04, 1934
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/879539

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Emperor

Respondent

K.C.B., a Pleader

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1935Cal547,157Ind.Cas.998

Excerpt

- .....it was argued on behalf of the pleader that the evidence in the case was wholly insufficient to substantiate the charge against the pleader. the relevant portions of the evidence on the record was placed for our consideration by the advocate representing the pleader. on careful consideration of the materials on the record, we are unable to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the magistrates and the learned judge, that the pleader had given his client the false information that the sub-divisional magistrate had ordered the tins of ghee to be sent back to the person they belonged to; that the sub-divisional magistrate had permitted the disposal of the tins of ghee, which were the subject-matter of a charge under section 16(1)(c), bengal food adulteration act, is wrong. in our judgment, the pleader concerned was guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, as contemplated by section 13(b), legal practitioners act. in view of the facts and circumstances appearing from the materials on the record, we have come to the decision that an order of suspension of the pleader for the period of three months will sufficiently meet the justice of the case before us; and we direct accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is a Reference under Section 14(b), Legal Practitioners Act, made to this Court, by the learned District Judge of Burdwan, recommending the suspension of a Pleader practising at Katwa, for one year, on the ground that the pleader was guilty of grossly improper conduct in the exercise of his professional duties. It appears that the pleader was charged by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Katwa, for having falsely told one Bazrang Lal Marwari that the Sub-divisional Officer, Katwa, had ordered that 'the goods be sent to the person they belonged to,' in respect of twenty-three tins of ghee which the Katwa Municipality had impounded as being adulterated, and which had been kept in the custody of the said Bazrang Lal Marwari by the Municipality, and Bazrang Lal Marwari had sent the ghee back to the person to whom it belonged, by relying on the said false statement of the pleader. An inquiry into the charge was made by a Magistrate in which inquiry evidence was taken. On the materials placed before the inquiring Magistrate, he came to the conclusion that the allegation against the pleader had been proved. The report of the Magistrate was in due course placed before the District Magistrate of Burdwan as required by law; and the District Magistrate held that the conduct of the pleader was most reprehensible, and was of opinion that action should be taken against him under the Legal Practitioners Act. The record of the case was thereupon sent to the District and Sessions Judge of Burdwan for taking necessary action. The District Judge accepted the conclusions of the inquiring Magistrate and the District Magistrate, and has reported the case of the pleader to this Court for such action as this Court might think fit and proper, with the recommendation for suspension of the pleader, as mentioned above.

2. It was argued on behalf of the Pleader that the evidence in the case was wholly insufficient to substantiate the charge against the Pleader. The relevant portions of the evidence on the record was placed for our consideration by the Advocate representing the Pleader. On careful consideration of the materials on the record, we are unable to hold that the conclusion arrived at by the Magistrates and the learned Judge, that the Pleader had given his client the false information that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had ordered the tins of ghee to be sent back to the person they belonged to; that the Sub-divisional Magistrate had permitted the disposal of the tins of ghee, which were the subject-matter of a charge under Section 16(1)(c), Bengal Food Adulteration Act, is wrong. In our judgment, the pleader concerned was guilty of fraudulent or grossly improper conduct in the discharge of his professional duty, as contemplated by Section 13(b), Legal Practitioners Act. In view of the facts and circumstances appearing from the materials on the record, we have come to the decision that an order of suspension of the pleader for the period of three months will sufficiently meet the justice of the case before us; and we direct accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial