Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.
1. In this matter there are three Rules which were obtained by Mr. Amjad Ali, who is a Pleader, and who has been practising in the District Court of Sylhet and the Courts subordinate thereto since the year 1901. The Rule With which I intend to deal first is No. 2 of 1920. That Rule was granted to show cause why an order, dated the 17th of December I9i9,imde by the learned District Judge directing the prosecution of Mr. Amjad Ali under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code should not be set aside. The order for the prosecution arose in this way: It appears that there was an appeal pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a man called Kailash Chandra Chaudhuri who had been convicted of some offence. Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal, a learned Pleader, was' appearing for the appellant, and Mr. Amjad Ali was appearing on behalf of the Crown. The appeal had been heard and the arguments had been concluded, and, as I understand the facts, these two learned gentlemen asked the learned Additional Sessions Judge to be allowed to submit notes of their arguments: at all events, it does not matter much how it came to pass, it was arranged that these two learned gentlemen should submit notes of their arguments to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It appears that Mr. Amjad Ali submitted his so-called notes to the learned Additional Sessions Judge without showing them to the learned Pleader on the other side. Then, Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal proceeded to prepare the so-called notes of his arguments for the learned Sessions Judge; and he appears to have done so in the Bar Library, more or less publicly. The learned District Judge has come to the conclusion that those notes were made but were not in fact submitted. Personally, I have not much doubt that they were prepared for the purpose of submission. I do not suppose that any body would contend that the so-called notes of Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal wrere really notes; they were in the form of a judgment which would have been completed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge attaching his signature thereto. To state the matter quite shortly, without going into detail of what occurred, Mr. Amjad Ali went to the learned District Judge and informed him that Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal wanted or had attempted to hand to the learned Additional Sessions Judge something in the nature of the draft of a judgment, that he (Amjad Ali) had intervened and prevented that from being done. The learned District Judge after making some enquiries directed proceedings to he taken against Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal under the Legal Practitioners Act. He held an enquiry and came to the conclusion thrat Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal should be acquitted of the charge. of professional misconduct which was the basis of those proceedings. He then made the order to which I have referred, namely, the order of the 17th of December 1919, that Mr. Amjad Ali should be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of certain statements which Mr. Amjad Ali had made during the course of the enquiry under the Legal Practitioners Act against Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal which the learned Judge, to say the least; thought were not correct. The learned Vakil who has appeared for Mr. Amjad Ali has stated this morning in open Court that he could not defend the conduct of Mr. Amjad Ali and on behalf of his client expressed contrition in respect thereof. In view of that expression by the learned Vakil on behalf of Mr. Amjad Ali, and in view of the fact that in consequence of these proceedings Mr. Amjad Ali has been in effect debarred from practising since the middle of December last, and in view of the publicity which has been given by reason of these proceedings, my learned brother and I are of opinion that it is not necessary for the ends of justice that this criminal prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code should proceed: consequently, we make this Rule absolute and set aside the order.
2. But before parting with this matter my learned brother and I feel that we ought to express our disapproval of the conduct of Mr. Amjad Ali which I have already mentioned, the learned Vakil appearing for him to-day has not attempted to defend.
3. With regard to the question of submitting the notes to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, we are of opinion that, when a case has been fully argued, as it was in this case, before a learned Judge, it ought not to be necessary for the learned Pleaders to submit notes of their arguments. It is the duty of the learned Judge to take such notes of the arguments as he thinks fit when they are being submitted to the Court; and, if he feels that he has not fully appreciated any part of the arguments which have been submitted to him, it is open to him to call the parties before him so that any further argument may be presented in open Court in the. presence of the other side. If it becomes necessary, as in some exceptional case it may become necessary, for the learned Judge either to require or to receive, notes of the learned Pleader's arguments, such notes ought not to be submitted to the learned Judge by the learned Pleader on one side, without first submitting the notes to the learned Pleader on the other side. If in any case a learned Pleader desires to submit to the Court, the notes of his argument or of any further argument, which he thinks in the interest of his client ought to be put before the Court, he should submit them to the Pleader on the other side, so that the latter may have an opportunity of making any remarks or any criticism in respect thereof.
4. As regards the form of the notes, the learned Vakil, Mr. Sanyal, with his great experience at the Bar, has admitted that the form of the notes presented by Mr. Amjad Ali could not be defended; although it might be said that the so-called notes which he submitted were not perhaps quite such a complete draft of a judgment as the notes which were made by Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal, in my judgment, there is very little difference between the two--both were objectionable and I desire to make it clear that the submission of ' notes ' in the form of a draft judgment, as in this case, must not be done again. I confess I am somewhat surprised that the learned Judge when he received the so-called notes from Mr. Amjad Ali, if he read them, did not at once return them to the learned Pleader on the ground that they were in a form which should not have been put before a learned Judge.
5. So much for Rule No. 2.
6. The next Rule with which I desire to deal is No. 1 of 1920. In that case sanction has been granted to Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal to prosecute Mr. Amjad Ali, the allegation being that he had laid false information before the learned District Judge with regard to the conduct of Mr. Suresh Ranjan Pal in relation to the so-called notes which Mr. Suiesh Ranjan Pal had prepared. That the. two learned Pleadeis should fall out in the way they did and that it should be thought necessary by one learned Pleader to ask for sanction to prosecute the other learned Pleader in respect of the allegations which he had made before the learned Judge, to my mind, is lamentable. Such proceedings are derogatory to the learned Pleaders themselves and to the honourable profession to which they belong: Such matters as these, if unfortunately they do occur, ordinarily ought not to be the subject-matter of criminal proceedings. They relate to professional conduct and should be settled by some tribunal or person capable of dealing with such matters. In this case Mr. Manmatha Nath Mukherjee appearing on behalf of Mr. Amjad Ali has associated himself with everything, that Mr. Sanyal has said, and the learned Vakil appearing on behalf of Mr. Suresh RanjanPalhas accepted what Mr. Manmatha Nath Mukherj ee said, and he intimates that his client did not want to be vindictive. I was glad to hear that statement. The result is, that this Rule is made absolute.
7. As regards the last Rule, that was a Rule obtained by Mr. Amjad Ali in connection with proceedings taken against him by Mr. Radha Benode Das, another learned Pleader, who occupied the position of Public Prosecutor: and the main statement complained of by Mr. Radha Benode Das was to the effect that Mr. Amjad Ali had seen Mr. Radha Benode Das whispering to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the suggestion was, that it was done with a view to influence the learned Judge as to his decision in the appeal by K-ailash which was then pending before him. I do not suppose that there is a word of truth in the suggestion and in fact Mr. Manmatha Nath Mukherjee appearing on behalf of Mr. Amjad Ali has withdrawn the suggestion in an unqualified way and more than that he has apologized on behalf of Mr. Amjad Ali in open Court to Mr. Radha Benode Das for having made such suggestion; Mr. Bose appearing on behalf of Mr. Radha Benode Das has, I am glad to say, accepted that withdrawal and apology. In respect of this matter also, although the suggestion which was made against Mr. Radha Benode Das must have been very annoying to a professional gentleman of his position, I really do not think that a Criminal Court is a tribunal to settle a matter of this kind. Surely in a District like Sylhet there must be some tribunal or person capable of settling or dealing with a dispute of this kind without one learned Pleader bring-in? the other learned Pleader into a Criminal Court. The Rule in this case is also made absolute.
8. There is only one other matter to which I need refer and that is that Mr. Sneyal, the learned Vakil appearing for Mr. Amjsd Ali, urged before us that his client had teen actuated by no imporper motive in what he did. He said that his client had teen hasty and had been too anxious to obtain a successful issue in the appeal on behalf of his client. Having regard to the fact that he was appearing on behalf of the Crown in a criminal case, I can only say that, in my judgment, Mr. Amjad Ali did not display that discretion which I should expect 'to find on the part of a learned Pleader of his standing. I do not think it necessary to say anything more than that, especially having regard to what has already fallen from the learned Vakil, who has appeared for him in this Court, and who has expressed on his behalf contrition for the course which he adopted.
9. In conclusion, my learned brother and I hope that there will now be an end of these unpleasant matters and. that these learned gentlemen will resume their practice and maintain such amicable relations as ought always to exist between the members of an honourable profession.
10. I agree.