JUDGMENT Thomas, C.J. and Ghulam Hasan, J. - This is an application by one Shyam Sunder u/s 13 of the Legal Practitioners' Act (XVIII of 1879) praying that disciplinary action be taken against Thakur Sheoraj Singh, a pleader practising in Lucknow. 2. Thakur Sheoraj Singh took his LL.B. degree in 1937 and was enrolled as a pleader on the 30th July, 1937. Since his enrolment he has been practising in Lucknow. It appears that the applicant Shyam Sunder was prosecuted along with certain other persons under Sections 325 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code upon the report made by one Sheo Bishal Singh alleging that the applicant and his co-accused had waylaid the complainant in broad daylight on Cawnpore Road and inflicted serious injuries on him. The applicant and his co-accused were convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Lucknow. They were, however, acquitted on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Lucknow. 3. The defence of the accused, inter alia, was that Thakur Sheoraj Singh was 'interested' in procuring the conviction of the accused and had assisted in procuring witnesses for the prosecution. Thakur Sheoraj Singh was a candidate for election to the District Board and was opposed by one Jageshwar Singh. Shyam Sunder, the applicant worked for the rival candidate and therefore Thakur Sheoraj Singh nursed a grievance against him and other adherents of his opponent in the election. As there were allegations made against Thakur Sheoraj Singh in the criminal case, the Magistrate examined him u/s 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trend of the cross-examination on behalf of the accused shows that they were anxious to show that the witnesses for the prosecution were in some way or another connected with Sheoraj Singh. One of these witnesses was Ram Nath, who was the nephew of one Harpal Singh of Ummedkhera. This Harpal Singh was a co-mortgagee with Mst. Jairaj Kuar, the wife of Thakur Sheoraj Singh. The mortgage was executed jointly in favour of these two persons on the 19th October, 1940. Sheoraj Singh was questioned in regard to this transaction of mortgage. He admitted that Harpal Singh of Ummedkhera was his client but stated that he did not known if Harpal Singh's nephew Ram Nath was a witness in that criminal case. The mortgage was executed jointly in favour of these two persons on the 19th October, 1940. Sheoraj Singh was questioned in regard to this transaction of mortgage. He admitted that Harpal Singh of Ummedkhera was his client but stated that he did not known if Harpal Singh's nephew Ram Nath was a witness in that criminal case. He also said that he did not know if his wife and Harpal Singh had jointly taken any theka. He further stated that he did not know the name of his wife. A document (Exhibit k), which is the mortgage deed of the 9th October, 1940, was shown to him in the witness box and upon seeing it Sheoraj Singh stated that this may have been executed by his wife and Harpal Singh within his knowledge. Another statement in his evidence to which an exception was taken was that his wife had no property in Lucknow district. 4. In the course of his judgment the Magistrate remarked: "As regards the part played by Thakur Sheoraj Singh it cannot be doubled that he is an interested person and has been assisting the complainant and siding with them. The statement he has made in Court has unfortunately not been very satisfactory or straight-forward". The Sessions Judge remarked as follows:-- "That Thakur Sheoraj Singh, I regret to say, appears to have made statements in the course of his evidence which are palpably false in order to avoid having to admit that his wife entered into the transaction with Ram Nath Singh's uncle and has thereby committed perjury." 5. The learned Sessions Judge also issued a notice to Thakur Sheoraj Singh u/s 476-A of Code of Criminal Procedure to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for perjury. The notice was cancelled upon certain explanations being offered by Thakur Sheoraj Singh and upon his tendering an apology. These proceedings were taken in the absence of the applicant. 6. Upon the application being made in this Court for action against the pleader, the learned District Judge of Lucknow was asked to make an enquiry and submit a report in the matter. The applicant produced certain documents before the learned Judge and these are referred to by him in his report. 6. Upon the application being made in this Court for action against the pleader, the learned District Judge of Lucknow was asked to make an enquiry and submit a report in the matter. The applicant produced certain documents before the learned Judge and these are referred to by him in his report. The learned Judge says that the view taken by him in the appeal was that Thakur Sheoraj Singh was probably responsible for the prosecution of the accused persons and he saw no reason to alter that opinion. He, however, did not find sufficient reasons to convince him that the pleader could be prosecuted for perjury. As regards the statement that the pleader did not know the name of his wife, the learned Judge says that he had no doubt that in order to conceal the fact that his wife had entered into a mortgage transaction along with Harpal Singh, the uncle of Ram Nath Singh who was a prosecution witness in the criminal case, the pleader very foolishly tried to avoid divulging the name of his wife as this would have indicated a connection between himself and Ram Nath Singh. As regards the second statement that his wife had no property in the Lucknow district, the learned Judge accepted the explanation that she had no property in Lucknow over which she exercised full rights of ownership and there was no attempt on the part of the pleader to conceal the fact that certain property in Lucknow had been mortgaged to her. 7. We have heard Mr. Bahadurji, who has appeared before us on behalf of the pleader. The pleader was also present in person. Mr. Bahadurji has made an impassioned appeal on behalf of the pleader and has contended not in justification of the pleader's action but presumably in extenuation of his guilt that the statements to which exception has been taken were made by the pleader out of sheer foolishness and not out of any ulterior motive. The pleader has thrown himself on the mercy of the Court and we have been asked to treat his case leniently as he is a young man who has a family to support and a severe disciplinary action against him would ruin him at the threshold of his career. The pleader has thrown himself on the mercy of the Court and we have been asked to treat his case leniently as he is a young man who has a family to support and a severe disciplinary action against him would ruin him at the threshold of his career. Inspite of the explanation offered before us on behalf of the pleader we agree with the view taken by the learned District Judge that the pleader tried to conceal the transaction of mortgage with a view to avoiding the suggestion made against him that P.W. Ram Nath Singh was procured through his instrumentality. We are not prepared to hold that the statement that the pleader did not know the name of his wife was only a foolish and purposeless denial. We are inclined to think that it was deliberate and was calculated to create an impression that he had nothing to do with the production of the prosecution witnesses. This view is strengthened by the documentary evidence which has been produced by the applicant. Apart from the mortgage deed, there is an application dated the 21st October, 1940, prepared two days, after the execution of the mortgage, by Thakur Sheoraj Singh himself as pleader on behalf of his wife and Harpal Singh. This application was made to the Sale Officer in which the mortgage is referred to. There is also a plaint dated the 8th October, 1942, which is signed by the pleader, u/s 180 of the U.P. Tenancy Act which was filed by him on behalf of Harpal Singh and his wife against certain tenants. The pleader's Vakalatnama also bears the same date. The pleader was examined by the Magistrate on the 7th November, 1942, and it is impossible to believe that because his wife had been living with her father since 2 1/2 years and the consideration of the mortgage had proceeded from her father he was unaware of the existence of the mortgage. This statement is palpably untrue and was doubtless made with the object of concealing his connection with the prosecution witness in the criminal case. The statement that his wife had no property in Lucknow district also appears to us to be untrue and was made in furtherance of the same object. The pleader in his statement did not draw any distinction between proprietary rights or mortgagee rights. The statement that his wife had no property in Lucknow district also appears to us to be untrue and was made in furtherance of the same object. The pleader in his statement did not draw any distinction between proprietary rights or mortgagee rights. He was merely asked whether his wife had any property in the district of Lucknow. The most honest and straight forward answer for a man of his education and training would have been that she had mortgagee rights in certain property. It is admitted that the mortgage was with possession. We are, therefore, of opinion that the conduct of the pleader in making the untrue statements referred to above cannot be lightly disregarded. Members of the legal profession are expected to maintain not only a high standard of professional morality and ethics but they are also expected as men of education, and culture and as members of an honorable profession to act in an honest, straightforward and upright manner. Any deviation from these elementary principles when brought to the notice of Courts must be severely dealt with. We cannot but regard the conduct of the pleader as reprehensible in making the palpably false statements to wriggle out of an inconvenient situation. 8. Accordingly we find that Thakur Sheoraj Singh is guilty of improper conduct involving moral turpitude. In order to mark our disapproval of his conduct we order that the pleader Thakur Sheoraj Singh should be suspended from practice for a period of six months from today.