1. This is a Rule issued by this Court under Section 13 of the Legal Practitioners Act, calling upon one Rudra Prosad, a mukeor practising at Muzafferpore, to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed. Rudra Prosad was examined as a witness at the instance of the Court in a Probate case. In the course of his deposition he stated that he had attested the Will of which Probate was sought, four days after the death of the testator. According to him the testator died on the 5th December 1910, and immediately afterwards he was pressed by persons interested in establishing the Will, to put his name down as an attesting witness. He admits that he was not present at the time of the execution of the Will nor had he obtained from the testator an acknowledgment of his signature. In the affidavit which has been placed before us in this Court he admits that when it was first suggested to him that he should put his name down as that of an attesting witness he took time to consider the matter. This plainly indicates that he'wa8 aware that what he was pressed to do was not right. In spite of this, he yielded to pressure and as he puts it, in a moment of weakness ultimately consented to put his name down as an attesting witness. It has not been disputed before us, indeed it cannot be disputed that the conduct of the muktear has been wholly unworthy of the profession to which he belongs and the learned Vakil who has appear-ed on his behalf has made no attempt to justify his act. He has submitted, however, that there are circumstances which might. well be taken into account by the Court with a view to determine the mode in which the muktear should be dealt with under Section 33 of the Legal Practitioners Act. It has been urged that he has been a member of the profession for over 25 years, that as evidenced by the certificates produced, he has hitherto borne a good character and that he is sincerely repentant for his misconduct. There is also the circumstance that he proceeded on the assumption that the document was genuine because what purported to be the signature of the testator was like his genuine signature (with which he was familiar) as his officer and has subsequently been found to be genuine by the Court below. There are, no doubt, relevant circumstances and, but for them, we would have been prepared to dismiss him, because an act of this character on the part of a professional gentleman is reprehensible in the highest degree. In view of these circumstances, and also of the fact that in the Court below the muktear made no attempt to perjure himself but freely disclosed what he had done, we have decided to deal with him very mercifully. The order of the Court is that he be suspended for three months from this date.