JUDGMENT 1. The subject-matter of this rule is a proceeding drawn up by a certain Munsif in the District of Gaya on the 20th December 1902 for the prosecution of a vakil of this Court, Babu Prokash Chunder Sarkar, under sec. 174 of the Indian Penal Code. This vakil happened to be engaged in a certain execution case before that Munsif, and in connection with that case, he presented a petition to that officer complaining of the conduct of ascertain peon who was charged with the execution of a writ of attachment. The Munsif apparently was of opinion that the charge preferred against the peon was not well-founded and he called upon the vakil to show cause on the 22nd November 1902 why a report should not be made against him to the High Court for gross professional misconduct. On the said day, that is, the 22nd November, the vakil put in a written explanation, and thereupon the Munsif ordered that the matter be put up on the 6th December for orders. On the 6th December, the Munsif recorded the following order : "Babu Prokash Chunder Sarkar does not respond to calls and is absent." This was followed by another order which runs as follows:-- "The explanation of the vakil Babu Prokash Chunder Sarkar read. His first objection is that he was entitled to fifteen days' previous notice. The provisions of the Legal Practitioners Act do not apply in his case still he has been allowed fifteen days' time and this date was fixed for considering what he has to say in the matter. The vakil denies that he knew or had reason to believe that the complaint made by his servant Keshwar Sing was false. It is, therefore, necessary to take evidence in this case." Then follows the names of a number of persons who should be summoned as witnesses on the 20th December, which date, according to the order of the Munsif, was fixed for hearing and there is a note to the effect "Babu Prokash Chunder Sarkar to appear and adduce any evidence he wishes on that date." On the 6th December, Prokash Chunder Sarkar did not appear, and the Munsif recorded that he waited for over half an hour, but the vakil did not turn up. Then, on the 20th December, he drew up the proceeding with which we are concerned in which it was stated that the 6th December was fixed for the hearing of the case; but the vakil, in spite of full knowledge and due information of the said order, deliberately neglected to appear either personally or by agent, and thereby committed an offence under sec. 174 of the Indian Penal Code, and he accordingly ordered that the proceeding might be forwarded to the Magistrate of Gaya so that that officer might take cognizance of the offence under sec. 174, I.P.C. It would appear upon the order-sheet of the Munsif that, on the same date, that is, the 20th December, the vakil Babu Prokash Chunder Sarkar did appear before him through a pleader Babu Nund Kishore Lal, and the contention seems to have been then raised that the Munsif had no jurisdiction to hold the inquiry. The Munsif was, however, of a different opinion; and he recorded that he had authority to call upon the vakil for an explanation so that the matter might be laid before the High Court for orders. It also appears that certain witnesses were examined on the same date, and subsequently the 17th January 1903 was fixed for the taking of further evidence with a note to the effect that the vakil Prokash Chunder Sarkar need not appear on that day if he does not like." It seems to us without going into the question whether the Munsif had jurisdiction to take proceedings against the vakil in the way he did, it is sufficient to say that there was no order enjoining upon the vakil to appear personally before the Munsif on the 6th December 1902. The vakil had been called upon to offer an explanation which he did on the 22nd November and to all intents and purposes, this was a sufficient compliance with the order of the Munsif, supposing he was entitled to make such an order, as to which we need express no opinion on the present occasion. The vakil had been called upon to offer an explanation which he did on the 22nd November and to all intents and purposes, this was a sufficient compliance with the order of the Munsif, supposing he was entitled to make such an order, as to which we need express no opinion on the present occasion. There was, as we have already indicated, no subsequent order by the Munsif calling upon the pleader to appear personally on the 6th December or any other date; and we do not understand how it could be said that there was an order made by the Munsif, which the vakil did not obey, or that the disobedience if there was any on his part was intentional. We think that upon this simple ground the proceeding of the 20th December 1902 should be quashed and we order accordingly.