JUDGMENT 1. This is a reference from the District Judge of Burdwan under sec. 14 of the Legal Practitioner's Act. Mangobind Mitter, a muktear practising at Burdwan, stood surety for the appearance of a tehsildar under the Court of Wards before the Collector. In consequence of the non-appearance of the tehsildar subsequently before the manager under the Collector at a certain time appointed, the muktear's bail bond was forfeited, and he was called upon to pay a certain amount of money. A certificate under the Public Demands Recovery Act was then issued against him, but the money could not be realized until some time afterwards, when the muktear paid it in. In the meantime, a proceeding was drawn up by the Magistrate of the District calling upon the muktear to show cause why his license as muktear should not be cancelled ; and, after be had shown cause, the Magistrate moved the Judge recommending that the muktear's license be cancelled and the Judge has referred the matter to this Court. 2. We do not quite understand how the Magistrate of the District took proceedings in this case against the muktear under the Legal Practitioner's Act. But without considering this matter, or the question of the jurisdiction of the Collector that was raised in the Court below, it will be sufficient if we examine the grounds upon which the District Judge holds that the muktear has been guilty of unprofessional conduct. These grounds are, first, that having no property of his own, the muktear has been making money in fees for standing surety for persons, such as the tehsildar under the Court of Wards; and, secondly, that when called upon to pay a portion of the amount covered by the surety bond he raised every obstacle before the Collector to avoid payment. The learned Judge has at the same time stated that muktears are in the habit of making an income from fees received from accused persons for whose attendance they stand surety, and that this is unprofessional. 3. We are unable, however, to take the same view that has been expressed by the District Judge. The learned Judge has at the same time stated that muktears are in the habit of making an income from fees received from accused persons for whose attendance they stand surety, and that this is unprofessional. 3. We are unable, however, to take the same view that has been expressed by the District Judge. When a person practising as a muktear stand surety for a person such as the tehsildar was, he does not do so in his professional capacity ; he does so in his private capacity, though no doubt the fact of his filling the position of a muktear lends a guarantee to the undertaking which the man gives, and perhaps induces the authority concerned to accept a bond from him ; nor do we think that the money which he receives from the person, for whom he stands surety, can be regarded as a fee for professional services. In this view of the matter, we are unable to say that when a person practising as a muktear makes any money in this way, he is guilty of unprofessional conduct. As to the muktear having entered into a surety bond, though he was a person of MO property, all that we need say is that it was the duty of the officer who accepted the surety bond to see whether the muktear was a man of substance. But we are unable to see how this could be regarded as professional misconduct on the part of the muktear. The learned Judge, however, says that he raised every obstacle in order to avoid payment. We gather what he did was to show that he had discharged his obligation under the bond in question and contended that the certificate issued against him was illegal, and that when a distress-warrant was issued, he was not to be found for some little time, and the warrant was returned unexecuted, because no moveable property belonging to him was found. The position that the muktear took before the lower Courts in the matter of his liability might or might not have been correct, but as to this it is not necessary to express any opinion : all that we need say is that such acts as he committed could not be regarded as professional misconduct. The position that the muktear took before the lower Courts in the matter of his liability might or might not have been correct, but as to this it is not necessary to express any opinion : all that we need say is that such acts as he committed could not be regarded as professional misconduct. For these reasons we are unable to accept the recommendation of the District Judge, and we direct that the muktear be permitted to resume his practice.