Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.
1. The name of the petitioner was struck off the roll of advocates of this Court on the 15th October, 1931, as it had been shown thathe had misappropriated a sum of Rs. 4,800 belonging to a client. The petitioner, who had considerable property, got into financial difficulties in 1927 and on the 14th February of that year he was adjudicated an insolvent. On the 25th April, 1927, he was suspended from practice. The delay in the passing of the order striking the petitioner's name off the rolls was due to the fact that the Court desired to know the position disclosed by the insolvent's public examination before arriving at a decision. The justice of the order of this Court striking the petitioner's name off the roll of advocates is not and could not be questioned. It is said, however, that during the twelve years that have elapsed since the petitioner was first suspended he has worked hard to rehabilitate himself and has succeeded in establishing an honourable reputation. The petitioner rendered all assistance that he could to the Official Assignee and secured his discharge on the 8th December, 1930. After his suspension from practice he obtained a clerkship in the office of Mr. Shamanna, a well-known solicitor of Madras, and retained this post until 1934 when he obtained a clerkship with Messrs. King and Partridge, also well-known solicitors of this city. He has continued in their service ever since. Mr. Shamanna and Messrs. H. Maitland Jones and Leslie D. Miller of Messrs. King and Partridge have given the petitioner certificates of character. Mr. Shamanna says that while he was employed by him the petitioner was dealing with his cases and with his clients and that he foijnd his conduct and dealings both with his clients and the other members of his establishment to be satisfactory, and guided by a high*sense of probity. Mr. Maitland Jones says that while in the employment of his firm the petitioner has been entrusted with important work. Mr. Maitland Jones had many opportunities of observing his conduct which he says was excellent and in addition his probity was above suspicion. Mr. Miller says:
From my knowledge of him, in spite of what happened in the past, I personally would place every confidence in his integrity.
2. The petitioner has also filed a certificate given to him by Mr. Nugent Grant in April of this year. Mr. Grant says that the petitioner has throughout the period of his exclusion from the profession exhibited a consciousness of the injury he has done to himself and the profession of which he was once' an honourable member. Mr. Grant believes that he had made every endeavour to atone for his lapse from morality.
3. The act of professional misconduct committed by the petitioner was a very grave one and it was not possible to allow him to continue practising in an honourable profession. But that does not mean that the Court is precluded from reinstating him when adequate punishment has been imposed and he has shown that he has rehabilitated himself in such a manner that he is fitted to be admitted into his profession again. I consider that there is here ground for the Court holding that the petitioner has been fully punished and that he has regained his character to an extent that justifies his readmission as an advocate of this Court. For these reasons I would allow the petition.
4. I agree.
Krishnaszvami Aiyangar, J.
5. I agree.