1. In this case a vakil of the High Court presented a petition to the Sessions Judge on the day after the summing up to the assessors and before judgment had been delivered, in which he alleged, in paragraph 4, that the judge, before the arguments in the case were over, came to the court with a draft judgment, and added, in paragraph 5 : 'Not only that, but the draft judgment was the judgment for conviction.' These allegations were quite unfounded and there was no justification for making them. This has not been seriously contested by Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar. We think that in making unfounded allegations of this kind which involve a reflection on the conduct of the judge in the exercise of his office and in seeking to put them on record the vakil was guilty of professional misconduct for which he must be reprimanded and ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.