JUDGMENT 1. Joshia Peters, a Mukhtar of Meerut, has been called upon to show cause why he should not be suspended from practice or dismissed for having, on the 19th of December 1918, identified at the Treasury a certain person as belonging to the Supply and Transport Corps whereas in truth and in fact he had no knowledge of the person whatever and consequently was thereby guilty of professional misconduct. In the early part of the year 1919 by a complicated series of cheque frauds money was obtained from the Treasury by persons who were not entitled to it. One such cheque was dated the 16th of May 1919 and in the course of this fraud the supposed payee of the cheque had to be idantified. One Afzal Husain went and communicated with Joshia Peters and brought him forward for the purpose of identifying the payee as Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad. That did not happen to be the real name of the endorser of the cheque and Peters did not know him, but he did know Afzal Husain who was the introducer. One serious circumstance about this case is that Afzal Husain himself witnessed the signature of the endorser in a false name and which Peters must have known to be false. Immediately below the two signatures Joshia Peters wrote: "I know Muhammad Manzoor Ahmad and attest his signature." That was of course untrue and it was one of the steps which enabled this money to be taken from the Treasury. The question before us to day is whether or not that amounts to professional misconduct. Mr. Sorabji who appears for Joshia Peters commenced at first to argue that the conviction passed upon Peters in connection with this matter was bad: we express no opinion on that and it has nothing to do with the case before us. On the original cheque being produced before him and the circumstances which we have detailed having been brought to his notice he at once addressed himself, as was the proper thing to do, to the question of clemency. We have considered the matter and we think the very least period of suspension we can pass upon Joshia Peters is two (2) years, from this date. 2. There is a second case, the case of Niaz Ahmad. We have considered the matter and we think the very least period of suspension we can pass upon Joshia Peters is two (2) years, from this date. 2. There is a second case, the case of Niaz Ahmad. He also is a Mukhtar and has been called upon in the same way to show cause why he should not be suspended or dismissed for having identified a person whom be did not know, representing that person to be a tally clerk in the Supply and Transport Corps. The circumstances of Niaz Abmad's case are just the same as those of Peters, with this exception that whereas we believe that Peters could not have failed to see that Afzal Husain was signing a false name, there is as regards Niaz Ahmad the one circumstance that he identified a man whom he did not know. This is professional misconduct and must be punished and must be stopped. We suspend Niaz Ahmad for twelve calendar months from practising as a Mukhtar. 3. We direct Joshia Peters and Niaz Ahmad to surrender their certificates to the Registrar of this Court.