JUDGMENT 1. The several officers concerned in making this Reference have entirely failed to observe the procedure prescribed by sec.14 of the Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879. It appears that the Muktear, Fazalar Rahaman, was prosecuted under secs. 412/132 and 420, I.P.C. On the 1st December 1910, the District Magistrate discharged him under sec. 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the charge under sec. 420, I.P.C. He said nothing of the other charge under secs. 412/102. In the same order he directed the suspension of the muktear "under sec. 14, Act XLVIII" (meaning the Legal Practitioners Act XVIII of 1879) "pending the orders of the High Court." The District Magistrate then made a report not to this Court but to the Sessions Judge. In that report he does not find any definite charge established (as a matter of fact none had been framed) nor does he say whether he considers that the muktear should be suspended or dismissed in consequence, nor has he recorded any definite finding on the grounds thereof. This report of the District Magistrate, the District and Sessions Judge has forwarded to this Court without expressing his own opinion as required by the last part, of sec. 14. The Joint-Magistrate who appears have original enquiry has made report and expressed no opinion. We would point out to several officers concerned that the provisions of sec. 14 must be obeyed, and the procedure therein prescribed be strictly followed from first to last. The proceedings against the muktear under this Act (XVIII of 1879) must be separate and distinct and cannot be made part of the criminal proceedings as has been done in this case. 2. We therefore return this Reference and the papers to the District and Sessions Judge and direct that if further proceedings be taken in the matter, such proceedings be taken and the report made and forwarded to this Court in accordance with law.