Skip to content


In Re: M. Fazlar Rahaman, Muktear - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.247
AppellantIn Re: M. Fazlar Rahaman, Muktear
Excerpt:
legal practitioners act (xviii of 1879) section 14 - procedure--proceeding to be separate and distinct--report--opinion. - .....rahaman was prosecuted under sections 419/109 and 420, indian penal code on 1st december 1910, the district magistrate discharged him under section 253 of the criminal procedure code, on the charge under section 420, indian penal code. he said nothing of the other charge under sections 419/109. in the same order he directed the suspension of the mukhtear 'under section 14, act xviii' (meaning the legal practitioners act xviii of 1879) 'pending the orders of the high court.' the district magistrate then made a report not to this court hut to the sessions judge. in that report he does not find any definite charge established (as a matter of fact none had been framed) nor does he say whether he considers that the mukhtear should be suspended or dismissed in consequence, nor has he recorded.....
Judgment:

1. The several officers concerned in making this reference have entirely failed to observe the procedure prescribed by Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners, Act XVIII of 1879. It appears that the mukhtear Fazlar Rahaman was prosecuted under Sections 419/109 and 420, Indian Penal Code On 1st December 1910, the District Magistrate discharged him under Section 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. He said nothing of the other charge under Sections 419/109. In the same order he directed the suspension of the mukhtear 'under Section 14, Act XVIII' (meaning the Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879) 'pending the orders of the High Court.' The District Magistrate then made a report not to this Court hut to the Sessions Judge. In that report he does not find any definite charge established (as a matter of fact none had been framed) nor does he say whether he considers that the mukhtear should be suspended or dismissed in consequence, nor has he recorded any definite finding on the ground thereof. This report of the District Magistrate, the District and Sessions Judge has forwarded to this Court without expressing his own opinion as required by the last para, of Section 14, The Joint Magistrate, who appears to have made the original enquiry, has made no report and expressed no opinion.

2. We could point out to the several officers concerned that the provisions of Section 14 must be obeyed, and the procedure therein prescribed be strictly followed from first to last. The proceedings against the mukhtear under this Act (XVIII of 1879), must be separate and distinct and cannot be made part of criminal proceedings as has been done in this case.

3. We, therefore, return this reference and the papers to the District and Sessions Judge and direct that if further proceedings be taken in the matter, such proceedings be taken and the report made and forwarded to this Court in accordance with law.


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