JUDGMENT 1. This Rule must be made absolute on the ground that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioner is a tout within the meaning of the Legal Practitioners Act. A tout is defined in the Act as a person who procures the employment in any legal business of any legal practitioner in consideration of any remuneration moving from such practitioner or proposes to a legal practitioner to procure his employment in any legal business in consideration of such remuneration. The evidence does not show that the Petitioner is a man of this description. Witnesses come forward and say that he has been seen in Court looking after cases. Two persons come forward and say that he is their karpardaz and looks after their legal business. Another witness states that he has heard that the mukhtears regard him as a tout. This is the sum and substance of the evidence against this person. It is clearly insufficient to justify the order which has been made. The result, therefore, is that this Rule is made absolute and the order of the Court below discharged. This, however, will not prevent fresh proceedings being taken against this person for the purpose of proving by legal evidence that he is a tout within the meaning of the Act.