JUDGMENT Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J. 1. The respondent is an Advocate practising in the Madura District. He has been charged with professional misconduct in that he wrote a letter to a clerk of the Sub-Magistrate of Manaparai in the Trichinopoly District asking in effect that the return of money, jewels and a wrist watch to his clients should be dealt with urgently. They were entitled to the return of the money and the articles. In fact an application had been made to the District Magistrate for an order directing their return and this order had been passed. The letter complained of is dated 18th May, 1938 and is in these terms: My dear brother, I pray that you will be blessed with welfare, riches and good luck. I have herewith enclosed a memo. Yesterday, I have sent a memo. You should immediately send the documents referred to in these two memos to the Treasury Office at Kulittalai (for reference and return); further, I request you much to send me immediately ,the order directing the return of money to the petitioners. You must excuse me for the trouble. I feel very grateful for the help rendered by you till now and for the same to be rendered in future. I pray that God will bless you with long life and prosperity. 2. The Sub-Magistrate opened the cover and it was in this way that the letter came to light. The inquiry into the respondents conduct was conducted by the District Judge of Trichinopoly and he has submitted a report in which he has expressed the opinion that the respondent has not been guilty of professional misconduct. The District Judge has gone so far as to say that there was nothing improper on the part of the Advocate in requesting the clerk to expedite the despatch of the refund order to enable his clients "to get a refund of the money which they were legitimately entitled to get." 3. It is manifest that it is improper for an Advocate to address a letter to a clerk in a Magistrates Office asking that an application filed by him should be dealt with urgently. The proper course for the respondent was, if. there was any delay, to .bring the matter to the notice of the Sub-Magistrate himself. If such letters were allowed there is no knowing to what it might lead. The proper course for the respondent was, if. there was any delay, to .bring the matter to the notice of the Sub-Magistrate himself. If such letters were allowed there is no knowing to what it might lead. We will assume that the respondent did not intend anything improper, but he must have realised that what he was doing was improper. He has apologised and therefore we consider that the case will be met by censuring him for his conduct. It must be clearly understood that in future a case of this nature will not be so leniently dealt with.