Ewart Greaves, J.
1. This is a Reference under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act made to us by the Sessions Judge of Bakargunj. The facts are as follows: A certain Muktear, Jogendra Chandra Das by name, instituted certain proceedings under Section 144 of the Cr. P. C, and instituted such proceedings by a petition. The proceedings related to a certain plot of, land which belonged to him which he described in the petition as Dag No. 1441. He sought by the petition an injunction restraining the opposite party from doing certain acts with regard to the land. After the petition had been filed in Court the muktear discovered that he had made a mistake in his description of the dag in his petition and that it should have been described not merely as Dag No. 1441 but as Dag No. 1441/1659. Instead of presenting to the Court a further petition for amendment of the first petition he very-foolishly proceeded to effect an alteration in the petition which had been filed in Court...and he added to the dag of his petition--'1659' which made the description of the dag correct. A certified copy of the petition had been issued to the opposite party before the alteration was made. An injunction was granted and in the injunction the dag was correctly described as Dag No. 1441/1659. The fact that the certified copy of the petition served on the opposite party contained a reference to the dag which did not correspond with the description of the dag in the injunction caused the discovery of what had happened. The Deputy Magistrate in whose Court the alteration had been made lodged a complaint under Section 476 and sanction was granted and a prosecution was directed under the provisions of Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. The Additional District Magistrate found that there was no fraudulent motive in making the alteration and his finding was in these terms: 'The substitution was not made to defraud the second party or to cause wrongful loss to any person or wrongful gain to any person except in so far as Government was defrauded of eight-annas Court-fee.' In the result he came to the conclusion that the charge under Section 466 would not lie and he discharged the accused. But being impressed by what he considered the flagrant impropriety and professional dishonour and contempt of Court involved in the 'muktear's act he sent the record of the case to the District Judge with the recommendation that the High Court should be moved to cancel the muktear's license and to have him debarred from further practice. As a result, this Reference is made to us by the learned Sessions Judge of Bakargunj. In the Letter of Reference he expressed his opinion that the recommendation of the Additional District Magistrate that the muktear may be permanently debarred from future practice is unnecessarily severe and in this comment I agree with him. Undoubtedly the muktear did act in a foolish and reprehensible manner but it seems to us that save and except this act of foolishness he did nothing else and we think having regard to the fact that the muktear has suffered the harassment of criminal proceedings under Section 466 that the justice of the case will be met by our saying that the suspension of practice which he has undergone since the 9th of August last will be sufficient punishment for the act he has committed. He will be entitled to recommence his practice from this date.
2. I agree.