Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Bimalanand Das Gupta, a Pleader - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1924Cal329
AppellantEmperor
RespondentBimalanand Das Gupta, a Pleader
Cases Referred and Emperor v. Rajani Kanta A.I.R.
Excerpt:
- .....that he proclaimed before the criminal court where he was tried that he owed no allegiance to british courts and had no faith in british justice. we agree with the district judge that the pleader has deliberately disregarded the obligations that rest upon him as a member of the legal profession and is wholly unfit to practise in any court. it cannot be tolerated that a pleader should thus publicly seek to bring into contempt the administration of justice with which he is presumably intimately connected. this view was emphasised by this court in emperor v. tarini mohan barari a.i.r. 1923 cal. 580, and emperor v. rajani kanta a.i.r. 1922 cal. 515. we are consequently of opinion that the pleader has rendered himself liable to disciplinary action in respect of the third charge.5. the.....
Judgment:

Mookerjee, J.

1. This is a Reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act in the matter of Babu Bimalananda Das Gupta, a pleader at Dacca. The District Judge has formulated three charges against him. It is not necessary for our present purpose to refer to more than two of them.

2. The first charge is that he had engaged himself as a Professor of Economics in the Dacca National College without the permission of the High Court. The third charge is that when he was tried for an offence under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, ho stated to the Court that he had no faith in the justice administered by British. Courts.

3. As regards the first charge, the pleader sought to justify his conduct in the Court below by maintaining that his present occupation was in no way inferior, if not far superior, to the legal profession, and that he could not consequently be deemed to have violated the spirit of the law in the slightest degree. One of the rules framed by this Court to regulate the conduct of legal practitioners is in these terms : 'Any person, who having been admitted as a pleader, shall accept any appointment under Government or enter into any trade or other business shall give notice thereof to the High Court, who may thereupon suspend such pleader from practice or pass such orders as the said Court may think fit.' It cannot be disputed that the pleader has contravened the provisions of this rule and has rendered himself liable to disciplinary action.

4. As regards the third charge, it has been established that he proclaimed before the criminal Court where he was tried that he owed no allegiance to British Courts and had no faith in British Justice. We agree with the District Judge that the pleader has deliberately disregarded the obligations that rest upon him as a member of the legal profession and is wholly unfit to practise in any Court. It cannot be tolerated that a pleader should thus publicly seek to bring into contempt the administration of justice with which he is presumably intimately connected. This view was emphasised by this Court in Emperor v. Tarini Mohan Barari A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 580, and Emperor v. Rajani Kanta A.I.R. 1922 Cal. 515. We are consequently of opinion that the pleader has rendered himself liable to disciplinary action in respect of the third charge.

5. The result is that the Reference is made-absolute and the certificate issued to the pleader cancelled. If the faith of the pleader in British justice should ever be restored and if he should then apply for renewal of his certificate, the Court will deal with the matter on such materials as may be made available.


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