Skip to content


In Re: Rajendro Nath Mukerji - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All174
AppellantIn Re: Rajendro Nath Mukerji
Excerpt:
letters patent, section 8 - conviction of vakil for criminal offence-vakil called upon to show cause why he should not be struck off the roll--argument not allowed to show that conviction was wrong. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain..........that the conduct of his client in the matter was not such as to render him an unfit person to be retained on the roll of vakils of this court.4. the court then went on to consider the degree of culpability indicated by the conduct of the vakil which led to the conviction above referred to, and in the end passed an order striking him off the roll of vakils of the court.
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J., Knox, Blair, Banerji, Burkitt and Aikman, JJ.

1. In this case, which is a proceeding under Section 8 of the Letters Patent of this Court consequent on the conviction by the Court of Session of Allahabad of a vakil upon the rolls of this Court of the offence punishable under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code, which conviction was upheld on appeal to this Court, Mr. Porter has contended on the authority of In the matter of Durga Charan, Pleader I.L.R. 7 All. 290 and In re. Weare Solicitor L.R. 1893 2 Q.B.D. 439, that he was entitled to show that his client the vakil was not guilty of the offence of which he was convicted. If the observation of the Chief Justice on page 290 of the Indian Law Reports, 7 Allahabad, is to be taken as the decision of the Court on that point, we entirely dissent from it. It is to be observed that the Court, in refusing to exercise its power in that case under Section 12 of Act No. XVIII of 1879, did not suggest that the conviction was bad in fact or in law. The case in the Court of Appeal in England does not throw, in our opinion, any light on the question before us.

2. We cannot in this case question the propriety in law or in fact of the conviction of the Court of Session, which has been maintained by this Court on appeal. It is, however, incumbent on us, under Section 8 of our Letters Patent, to consider whether there exists reasonable cause for removing or suspending from practice the vakil who has been convicted, and for that purpose it is necessary for us to ascertain, as it is not admitted, the degree of culpability involved in the acts which constituted the offence of which he has been convicted.

3. We hold accordingly that Mr. Porter is not precluded from showing, if he can, that the conduct of his client in the matter was not such as to render him an unfit person to be retained on the roll of vakils of this Court.

4. The Court then went on to consider the degree of culpability indicated by the conduct of the vakil which led to the conviction above referred to, and in the end passed an order striking him off the roll of vakils of the Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //