JUDGMENT Amin Ahmed, J. - This is a reference u/s 14(b), Legal Practitioners Act by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gaibandha through the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge of Rangpur against one Babu Jatindra Mohan Ray, a Muktear practising in the Criminal Courts of Gaibandha Sub-Division in the District of Rangpur. The Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gaibandha has recommended disciplinary action against him and the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have endorsed his views. The material facts as stated in the report are as follows: 2. In Baisak 1353, Jashoda Dashya filed a complaint under Sections 147, 343 and 366, Penal Code, against one Ghataram Das and others, being Case No. 410 of 1046 alleging, inter alia, that Kanakprova who was the widow of her late brother, was abducted by the accused. A search warrant was issued, Kanakprova was recovered by her cousin one Bolai with the assistance of the Home Guards and was produced before the Court on 3rd July 1946, when the opposite party Jatindra Mohan Ray (and hereafter we shall call him only "Jatin Babu") stood surety for her and it was arranged, lest she was abducted again if she were taken to her relation's house, that she would stay in Jatin Babu's house and her relations would bear all her expenses. On 1st August 1946 when Ghatram, the principal accused of this case, surrendered in Court, Babu Sailendra Mohan Ray, son of Jatin Babu stood surety for him and had him released on bail. After one month Kanakprova was removed to the house of one Bejoy Govind Nag and after her stay there for a few days, she was removed to the house of one Miajan Sarkar, who was then the registered clerk of Jatin Babu's son, Sailendra Mohan Ray. As the relations of Kanakprova could not interview her there the villagers suspected foul play, held a sailis over the matter and reported it to the President of the Hindu Mahasabha. When the latter enquired of Kunakprova and her whereabouts from Jatin Babu be denied that Kanakprova was staying in the house of Miajan and said that she was living in a Brahmin family at Ballanjhar. When the latter enquired of Kunakprova and her whereabouts from Jatin Babu be denied that Kanakprova was staying in the house of Miajan and said that she was living in a Brahmin family at Ballanjhar. Further, under instructions of Jatin Babu, Miajan negotiated the sale of her movable and immovable properties, her corrugated iron sheet hut was sold while she was staying at Jatin Babu's house, the receipt of which was written by Miajan on the dictation of Jatin Babu and Sailendra Mohan Ray was an attesting witness to the document thereof; rents were realised on her account, remissions were granted over receipts written by Miajan and while she was in the custody of Jatin Babu she was made to sell property worth about Rs. 10,000 for Rs. 4000 out of which only Rs. 3000 was deposited in the bank in the name of a miner son of Miajan and that also were all withdrawn from the bank within a few months after they were deposited and this transaction was hastened as the final report of the case No. 410 of 1946 filed by the police was accepted, on 8th October 1946 and the accused were all discharged on that date. Lest Kanakprova's relations knew the result of the case the sale of this immovable property for Rs. 4000 was effected on 12th October 1946, i.e., on the reopening date of the criminal Courts and it was on the representation of Jatin Babu to Guna Mohan Das that Kanakprova wanted to sell her property in order to get some cash money and that Jatin Babu would see that Kanakprova was married well, that the vendee Guna Babu was satisfied about the bona fides of the transaction and actually bought the property as he did. 3. On 17th October 1946, Balai Chandra Sarkar a maternal cousin of Kanakprova, filed a complaint before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Gaibandha, alleging that she was insane and that her uncle-in-law one Kali Charan Das was after her properties and had her abducted. On this, although an abduction case being case No. 916 of 1916 was started, ultimately the Police submitted a final report to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused. 4. On this, although an abduction case being case No. 916 of 1916 was started, ultimately the Police submitted a final report to the effect that no case had been made out against the accused. 4. On 8th January 1947, on behalf of the Hindu Public of Gaibandha the present petition was filed against Jatin Babu, Sailendra Mohan and Miajan alleging, among other things, that both Jatin Babu and Sailen Babu had ruined this Hindu widow by allowing her to be kept under the custody of the said Miajan Sarkar knowing fully well what sort of man Miajan Sarkar is. On this petition, on 14th February 1947, the present proceedings were drawn up by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Gaibandha against Jatin Babu the opposite party in this case and he framed the following charges against him and called upon him to answer them: Whereas it has been brought to my notice by some members of the public that Babu Jatindra Mohan Ray, a Muktear, ordinarily practising at Gaibandha to the criminal Courts stood surety for the abducted woman Kanak Prova Dasya, a Hindu widow for Rs. 200 on 3rd July 1946 in connection with G.R. Case No. 410 of 1946, Emperor v. Ghata Ram Das and Ors. under Sections 366/342, Penal Code, and took her to his house where Kanak Prova used to bring necessary food stuff and money from her house for her maintenance; Kanakprova Dasya allowed to stay in the house of Babu Jatindra Mohan Roy Muktear for about a month and thereafter she was shifted to a house near the Gaibandha Thana where she had been for only about a fortnight, when Babu Jatindra Mohan Roy Muktear, allowed Miajan Sarkar-clerk of his son Babu Sailendra Mohan Roy Muktear - to remove the said Kanakprova to the house of Miajan Sarkar. The Vice President of the Local Hindu Mahasabha Babu Nishi Kanta Sarkar, B.L., the relations of Kanak Prova and her people inspite of their repeated requests could not know the whereabouts of Kanak Prova either from Jatin Babu, his son Sailen Babu or the clerk Miajan Sarkar and Babu Jatindra Mohan Roy Muktear began to negotiate with some persons to sell all the properties of Kanak Prova worth about Rs. 10,000 giving out that the sale proceeds would be deposited in a bank and Kanak Prova would be settled in the town of Gaibandha and she would be given in marriage with any Hindu bridegroom. Holding out such hopes and keeping Kanak Prova concealed in the house of Miajan Sarkar beyond the reach of her relatives and any legal advice, she was sent with Miajan Sarkar to Rangpur on 12th October 1946 and she was induced to sell all her properties at a nominal price of Rs. 4000. Thereafter the money and Kanak Prova could not be traced. But a petition having been filed by Balai Sarkar-a cousin of Kanak Prova-it was given out that Kanak Prova embraced Islam and Nika married Miajan Sarkar; it is reported that at the time of giving shelter to Kanak Prova, Jatin Babu assured her to look upon her as his daughter and to create confidence in her, Miajan Sarkar called her mother but after the above incident Babu Jatindra Mohan Roy Muktear did not take any action against Miajan Sarkar, moreover he has Still been retained as a registered clerk under Jatin Babu's son Sailen Babu who live in the same house and in same mess, by concealing his antecedents. 5. On 4th March 1947 pending the enquiry, with the sanction of the District Magistrate Jatin Babu was suspended by the Sub-divisional Magistrate from practising but on 24th March 1947, after hearing the arguments of the lawyer for Jatin Babu this order was vacated. After making the enquiry, at the time of submitting the proceedings to this Court, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, on 16th July 1947, with the sanction of the District Magistrate suspended Jatin Babu again from practice pending enquiry by this Court. 6. The learned Advocate-General appears is support of this reference and Mr. Bhattacherjee appears for Jatin Babu against this reference. 7. The learned Advocate Mr. 6. The learned Advocate-General appears is support of this reference and Mr. Bhattacherjee appears for Jatin Babu against this reference. 7. The learned Advocate Mr. Bhattacherjee for the opposite party has taken a preliminary objection that his reference is incompetent (sic) the offences complained of are criminal offense and so, his client should not be tried summar(sic) under the Legal Practitioners Act but he should be tried by a criminal Court and, if found gui(sic) then and then only proceedings under L(sic) Practitioners Act may be taken against his cli(sic) In support of his argument, he has relied on the following cases: In Re: A, Mukhtar of Bargarh, AIR 1943 Patna 52 . This is a decision of a Special (sic) of the Patna High Court. In this case Harries C.J. said: When the charge brought against a legal practitioner amounts to an allegation of the commission of a serious crime, the proper procedure to follow is to launch a prosecution for that crime and, if a conviction is obtained, to institute proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act. Mr. Bhattacherjee has also cited the decisions of the Calcutta High Court: the case of Chandi Charan, reported in 24 C.W.N. 755 : (A.I.R. 1920 Cal 565: 21 Cr.L.J. 691), case of In the matter of Rajendra Kumar Dutt reported in 30 C.W.N. 186 : AIR 1926 Cal. 502 : 27 cr. L.J. 701) and the case of In Re: Satis Chandra Singha, AIR 1927 Cal 536 . It is contended that in all these cases, it has been held that the correct procedure in those cases wherein a practitioner is charged with criminal offences is to institute criminal prosecution first. We may mention that even in the above case of Rajendra Kumar Dutta 30 C.W.N. 186 : AIR 1926 Cal. 502 : 27 Cr.L.J. 701 and In Re: Satis Chandra Singha, AIR 1927 Cal 536 , the case of In the matter Chandi Charan reported in 24 C.W.N. 755 : AIR 1920 Cal. 565 : 21 Cr.L.J. 601 was referred to with approval. In the latter case at p. 762, Mukherjee J., observed: It is not necessary to lay down an inflexible rule that there must in every case be a trial and conviction for criminal misconduct before disbarment will be ordered. 565 : 21 Cr.L.J. 601 was referred to with approval. In the latter case at p. 762, Mukherjee J., observed: It is not necessary to lay down an inflexible rule that there must in every case be a trial and conviction for criminal misconduct before disbarment will be ordered. That should be the ordinary rule when the misconduct alleged has no direct connection with the conduct of the pleader in his practical and immediate relation to the Court. On the other hand, when the misconduct attributed indicates unfitness to discharge professional duties, a criminal conviction may not always be a prerequisite to the adoption of disciplinary measures; and indeed, notwithstanding acquittal on the criminal charges, disciplinary measures may be successfully taken as in the case of In the matter of the Second Grade Pleaders reported in 34 Mad. 29 : 6 I.C. 313. The test to be applied in each case is, whether the person concerned will be prejudiced by the adoption of summary procedure for the investigation of what is in reality a grave criminal charge. 8. It will thus appear even from the decision of the Calcutta High Court that there is no such hard and fast rule that proceedings under the Legal Practitioners Act must follow only a conviction in criminal Court. Besides, as urged by the learned Advocate General far from there being any such invariable rule, it will appear from the wording of Section 14, Legal Practitioners Act itself, that Section 14 gives the High Court very wide discretion in regard to the exercise of disciplinary authority. In support of this, the learned Advocate General has cited the case of In re S.B. Sarbadhicary reported in 34 I.A. 41: 5 Cr.L.J. 67 P.C., where their Lordships of the Judicial Committee held that in a case of libel and contempt of the High Court Judges, the High Court had "reasonable cause", in suspending the practitioner. 9. The learned Advocate General has also cited a series of cases where proceedings taken under the Legal Practitioners Act before conviction not only in ordinary cases of charges of criminal offences but also in cases of charges of grave criminal offences were approved by Courts. The cases are: In the matter of a Pleader reported in 20 C.W.N. 1069 : AIR 1917 Cal. The cases are: In the matter of a Pleader reported in 20 C.W.N. 1069 : AIR 1917 Cal. 609 : 18 Cr.L.J. 42, In the matter of Rasik Lall 20 C.W.N. 1284 : AIR 1917 Cal 428 : 18 Cr.L.J. 420, District Judge, Kistna v. Uanumanulu 39 Mad. 1045 : AIR 1916 Mad. 1144 : 17 Cr.L.J. 38 F.B., P, a first grade Pleader, Markapur AIR 1942 Mad. 630 : 44 Cr.L.J. 17 S.B.), In the matter of R.S. Pleader AIR 1935 Pat. 249: 36 Cr.L.J. 1023 K., a Mukhtar of Aurangabad, AIR 1936 Patna 337 , In the matter of U, an Advocate, AIR 1939 Rang. 142 : 1939 Rang. L.K. 213 S.B,; In re Hari Prosunno reported in 21 C.W.N. 516 : AIR 1918 Cal. 196 : 18 Cr.L.J. 465 and In Re: N. Dharmaraja Ayyar, Second Grade Pleader, AIR 1928 Mad 918 . In the above case of a Pleader reported in 20 C.W.N. 1069 : AIR 1917 Cal. 609 : 18 Cr.L.J. 42), their Lordships Teunon and Chaudhuri JJ. held that tampering with Court's records was a serious matter and suspended the pleader for 3 months. In the above case of Hari Prosunno reported in 21 C.W.N. 516 : AIR 1918 Cal. 196 : 18 Cr.L.J. 465, his Lordship Woodroffe J. held that when a Muktear was found to have received a sum of money from a person against whom some police case was pending for the purpose of bribing the police and acted as a go between, his action furnished reasonable cause for punishment u/s 13, Clause (f), Legal Practitioners Act. In the above case of a second grade Pleader, reported in 51 Mad. 798 : AIR 1928 Mad. 918 : 29 Cr.L.J. 783 F.B., in support of an application for a transfer of a criminal case pending before a Magistrate, the pleader in question swore to an affidavit that he witnessed the Magistrate receiving a bribe from the accused. In this Full Bench case in which the sanad of the pleader was withheld for certain period Sir Murray Coutts Trotter, C.J. observed as follows: We wish to make it clear to the profession, if it does not already realise it, that it is a misconduct for a professional man not only to make charges which he knows to be false but charges which he must know he has no reasonable prospect of substantiating. So, we are unable to uphold the preliminary objection of Mr. Bhattacherjee that this reference is in competent inasmuch as there has been no previous criminal trial and conviction in respect of the charges formulated in this reference. 10. The next point urged by Mr. Bhattacherjee is that this case does not come under Clause (f) of Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act, i.e., it is not covered by the words therein, viz. "for any other reasonable cause." It is too late in the day to argue this and if any authority need be cited we may refer to the case of Le Mesurier v. Wajid Hossain reported in 29 Cal 890, Full Bench decision in which Hill J. as early as 1902 dealt with this point at length and referred to a large number of English and Indian cases. It was hold in that case that the words "any other reasonable cause" in Section 18, Clause (f), Legal Practitioners Act, are not confined to misconduct of which a practitioner is guilty in his professional capacity but embrace all causes which may afford reasonable grounds for his suspension or dismissal. In this case Hill J. also observed: The moral defect is the same whether there has or has not been a conviction, the difference lying only in the machinery employed in establishing it. In England, I may observe in the case of an attorney, the fact that an indictment might be, but has not been preferred, is no reason for the Court to stay its hand. If the fact of misconduct is brought before it? W.H.B reported in (1882) 50 L.J. 165) and see In re Hill, reported in (1868) 3 Q.B. 543 and in this country, if the law be as I conceive it to be, I think the same view would be taken. See the case of In the matter of Gholab Khan reported in 7 Beng L.R. 179 : 16 W.B. Cr. 15.... It appears to me also a strong authority for saying that the Court will act on proof of facts from which a moral defect of character may be implied, although they amount to a criminal offence for which the offender has not been convicted and have no connection with his professional avocations. The case of Rasik Loll Nag reported in 20 C.W.N. 1284 : AIR 1917 Cal. The case of Rasik Loll Nag reported in 20 C.W.N. 1284 : AIR 1917 Cal. 428 : 18 Cr.L.J. 420), may also be referred to in this connection. So, in our opinion, there is no doubt that Section 18(f) covers the present case and there is no substance in Mr. Bhattacharjee's argument that as the offences complained of were not committed by his client in his professional capacity, he is not hit by Section 13(f), Legal Practitioners Act. 11. The learned Advocate General argues that from the facts and circumstances of the case it is established that the conduct of Jatin Babu is not that of a honourable member of the Legal Profession to which he belongs. He suggests that Jatin Babu took Kanakprova under his care on 3rd July 1946 and had her removed first to the house of Nag and thence to the house of Miajan and his motive in doing so must be to share the sale proceeds of the property of Kanakprova with Miajan and this is apparent from the fact that he was screening Miajan although he knew where Kanakprova was living at different times and he misled people as to her whereabouts and discouraged interviews with her. For this he relies on the evidence of P.W.1 Balal, P.W.3 Maniruddin Sarkar, P.W.4 Jaki Mamud Sarkar, P.W.8 Shamshuddin Sarkar and P.W.11 Nishi Kanta Sarkar, P.W.19 Ramani Mohan Sarkar. Balai is the cousin of Kanakprova. We cannot rely very much on Balai's evidence as it was Balai who made a complaint before the present Magistrate and his complaint was not only dismissed but he was asked to show cause why he should not pay compensation for filing a false and frivolous complaint. P.W.3, Maniruddin, Ex-Tahsildar of Kanakprova, Bays: On another occasion I was not allowed to see her by Miajan. On hearing this I went to Jatin Babu and stated what Miajan had done Jatin Babu told me that Kanakprova did not like to see any of us. P.W.4 another Tahsildar of Kanakprova says "I enquired of Jatin Babu who said that Kanakprova would not see us any more." P.W.8. On hearing this I went to Jatin Babu and stated what Miajan had done Jatin Babu told me that Kanakprova did not like to see any of us. P.W.4 another Tahsildar of Kanakprova says "I enquired of Jatin Babu who said that Kanakprova would not see us any more." P.W.8. states that when he went with Bolai to enquire of Jatin Babu as to the whereabouts of Kanakprova, he was told by him that she was kept in the house of a Brahmin where there were other widows and she was happy there and eventually even Bolai was not allowed to interview Kanakprova. The evidence of P.W.11, President of Hindu Mahasabha, who is a B.L. pleader practising in Munsiff's Court seems to be most damaging. He says: Towards the end of Sraban, Jatin Babu told me that he was feeling it inconvenient to keep Kanakprova in his house as he has young sons and the woman was good looking.... I got a report from Sukham Banarjee, Secretary of the Organisation that Rishi Mohan Dey was willing to accommodate her. After 3 or 4 days Jatin Babu informed that he had made arrangement to keep the woman in the house of one of his relations, Bejoy Govinda Nag and the organisation need not think over it. By the middle of Bhadra Mobarak Sarkar, a pleader's clerk and Sukhan Babu Informed me that the woman was living in the house of Miajan Sarkar. On the morning following I met Jatin Babu in his house and told him what I had heard but he stated that it could not be.... He further stated that Miajan was like his own son. I met Jatin Babu in Court who told me that what I had heard was not true. Mobarak made a false statement and that the woman was kept in a Brahmin family at Ballnighar (in the house of Sarkar Chakravaorty). I believed Jatin Babu and did not make any further enquiry about it. But P.W.18, Govind Kumar Roy, a teacher of H.E. School states that there is no Brahmin family at Ballnighar except their family. Mobarak made a false statement and that the woman was kept in a Brahmin family at Ballnighar (in the house of Sarkar Chakravaorty). I believed Jatin Babu and did not make any further enquiry about it. But P.W.18, Govind Kumar Roy, a teacher of H.E. School states that there is no Brahmin family at Ballnighar except their family. If the evidence of these witnesses is accepted and there is no reason why their evidence should not (sic) accepted and why they should all tell a lie, their is no doubt that whatever the motive may be it was at the instance or with the connivance of Jatin Babu that Kanak Prova was removed from place to place and that ultimately she came (sic) live with Miajan. 12. Now, as to the disposal of her properties both movable and immovable. It is the (sic) dence of P.W.1, Balai and P.W.3, Maniruddin that for her maintenance the corrugated iron sheet hut was sold at Rs. 210 while she was living at Jatin Babu's house and, in our opinion, Jatin Babu cannot be blamed for it in any way. 13. But as to the sale of her immovable property, it is argued that, although Kanakprova was not in need of any money at the time, on account of the influence of Jatin Babu Kanakprova was made to sell her property worth ten or twelve thousand rupees for Rs. 4000, and not only it was sold at less than its proper price but it was sold in hot haste as soon as the final report was submitted by the Police. According to the evidence of P.W.17, Babu Hira Lal Chatterjee, Court A.S.I., the final report of the case in question was submitted by the police on 25th September 1946 and it was accepted and the accused were discharged on 8th October 1946. Except the evidence of P.W.1, Balai and P.W.3 Maniruddin that the property in question may be worth 10 or 12 thousand, there is no other evidence as to the real and exact value of the property. It is proved that the said property was purchased by P.W.9, Guna Mohan Das, the then President of Hindu Mahasabha for Rs. 4000 and the document thereof was registered on 12th October 1946, i.e., on the re-opening date of criminal Courts after the puja vacation, not at Gaibandha but at Rangpur registration office. It is proved that the said property was purchased by P.W.9, Guna Mohan Das, the then President of Hindu Mahasabha for Rs. 4000 and the document thereof was registered on 12th October 1946, i.e., on the re-opening date of criminal Courts after the puja vacation, not at Gaibandha but at Rangpur registration office. The most important witness of this transaction is P.W.9, the vendee of the property, Guno Mohan Das who is an M.A B.L. pleader practising at Gaibandha. He says: About 15 or 20 day a before the execution of the Kabala I had discussion about the purchase with Jatin Babu. Jatin Babu stated the reason FOR sale to be that Kanakprova would not be able to reside any more in her own place and that she would be given in marriage at Gaibandha. Many people will be agreeable to marry her if she had any money. Jatin Babu stated that money would be kept in a bank. I withdrew the consideration money from my deposits in Hazordi Bank. At the time of the withdrawal, I told Atul Babu, the Manager of the Bank that if he would approach Jatin Babu he might get the money again in deposit.... I had previous talk with Jatin Babu who stated that he looked upon Miajan as his own son and that ho trusted him ... She was selling the property as she was put to various trouble on account of the property....Sampatti amar kal (sic), shei janya bieri karitechhi. Again in re-examination, he says: "My bona fides regarding the execution of the Kabala arose from my discussion with Jatin Babu." From the evidence of this witness, it appears as if both Jatin Bahu and he were doing things out of the best of intention. Jatin Babu gave out that he wanted to get Kanakprova married with the cash money after the sale of her property and Guno Mohan Babu helped her to sell her property. 14. But, the evidence of other witnesses as to what happened afterwards does not support this view for P.W.10 Babu Atul Chandra Roy, local agent of Hazordi Bank corroborates P.W.9 Guno Mohan Babu when he states that Guno Mohan withdrew Rs. 14. But, the evidence of other witnesses as to what happened afterwards does not support this view for P.W.10 Babu Atul Chandra Roy, local agent of Hazordi Bank corroborates P.W.9 Guno Mohan Babu when he states that Guno Mohan withdrew Rs. 3900 by an overdraft and advised him to approach Jatin Babu so that he might get the money deposited by Jatin Babu after the sale and he actually approached Jatin Babu and the latter assured him with the deposit. But instead of depositing any money in the said Bank as promised, the evidence of P.W.5 an employee of local Das Bank is that on 15th October 1946 Miajan Sarkar opened an account in the Das Bank Ex. 2 in the name of his minor son Aminul Haque. According to this account only Rs. 3000 was deposited and by 30th January 1947, the entire amount except a balance of Rs. 10-156 was withdrawn. So, it is suggested that but for the instigation or connivance of Jatin Babu all this could not happen. Points are also made of the facts that to start with in the very abduction case in which Jatin Babu filed the complaint and stood for surety for Kanakprova his son Sailendra stood surety for the principal accused 1 Ghatu Sarkar that his son Sailendra's clerk Miajan was also working for Jatin Babu and most of the exhibits viz. Ex. 6 bail bond of Kanakprova dated 3rd July 1946, Ex. 3 receipt of Rs. 96 dated 14th August 1946 given by Kanakprova to her tenant, Ex. 1 a receipt of Rs. 210 dated 19th July 1946 given by Kanakprova to the vendee of the hut were all written by Miajan Sarkar and that even her younger brother who was staying with her was sent away as it appears from the evidence of her tenant Ruhini Kanta who says: Miajan came to the station with Anath, the minor brother of Kankprova and asked me to take him to Naldanga to his sister's house ... I took the boy to Naldanga. I took the boy to Naldanga. Some witnesses have said that they heard that Kanakprova became a Muslim and Miajan has married her but hearsay evidence is no evidence and the learned Advocate General has frankly conceded that there is nothing to prove that she has become a Muslim or that she is married to Miajan but he urges that on the above evidence and circumstances taken as a whole one cannot but say that Jatin Babu's conduct is not that of an honourable member of the profession and it calls for disciplinary action on our part. 15. Jatin Babu cannot escape from the fact that from the date, i.e., 3rd July 1946 he stood surety for Kanakprova till 10th October 1946 when the final report was accepted and accused were discharged. Jatin Babu was the surety and according to his undertaking he was bound to produce her before Court whenever he was called upon to do so, and so, he cannot be heard to say that he did not know the whereabouts of Kanakprova or he did not know how and when she went to the house of Miajan Sarkar. It is too much to say that all that P.W.9 Guno Mohan Babu and P.W.11 Nishi Kanta Sarkar who are respectable and leading pleaders of Gaibandha said are untrue. It is also curious that Jatin Babu has not only kept himself out of the witness-box but even in his written statement he has chosen not to give any explanation as to how Kanakprova who admittedly was staying with him to start with and for whom he stood surety escaped from his house and managed to land herself in the house of Miajan Sarkar and there sell her property. In this enquiry, we are somewhat handicapped as neither the prosecution nor the defence has examined Kanakprova or Miajan. Evidence of P.W.16 and Ex. 5, deposition of Miajan Sarkar in the case filed against Mubarak Sarkar and others sought to be relied upon by the prosecution are not, in our opinion, admissible in evidence. It seems to us that both the prosecution and the opposite party fought shy of examining Kanakprova and Miajan. At least to clarify matters further the Court should have examined them as court witnesses. It seems to us that both the prosecution and the opposite party fought shy of examining Kanakprova and Miajan. At least to clarify matters further the Court should have examined them as court witnesses. The learned Advocate-General contends that the prosecution did not examine them as they were under the influence of Jatin Babu and to give the lie direct to the prosecution case, the defence could have called either or both of them in order to demolish the prosecution case. In any case, in our opinion, in the interest of justice, the Court should have examined Kanakprova. 16. Mr. Bhattacharjee has argued that as soon as the Hindu community of Gaibandha came to hear of the disposal of property by Kanakprova and her living in the house of Miajan, there was a great sensation in the town as a result of which the present petition under the Legal Practitioners Act was filed and his client was made a scape goat on mere suspicion. In this connection he relied on the case of AIR 1930 144 (Privy Council) . In this case their Lordships of the Privy Council observed that charges of professional misconduct must be clearly proved and should not be inferred from mere ground of suspicion, however reasonable, or what may be mere error of judgment or indiscretion. The enquiry in a serious case of professional misconduct should proceed on formulated charges and the evidence should be carefully taken and judged according to the ordinary standard of proof. This case only says that the enquiry should be according to charges and the evidence should be taken and assessed according to ordinary standard of proof. But, in the present case evidence has been led in support of the charges and certain facts and circumstances have been proved according to ordinary standard of proof and so, the above case of AIR 1930 144 (Privy Council) has no application to the present case. 17. It is true that P.W.11 Nishi Kanta Sarkar, the President of Hindu Mahasabha, says that one of the reasons for the proceedings in question is the sensation in the town caused by the fact that Kanakprova sold, her property. P.W.14 who filed the petition before the S.D.O. against Jatin Babu also says: I cannot name particularly who gave me the date of the disposal of the property. That was a talk everywhere in the town. P.W.14 who filed the petition before the S.D.O. against Jatin Babu also says: I cannot name particularly who gave me the date of the disposal of the property. That was a talk everywhere in the town. Because the woman was converted to Islam led us to file the petition before S.D.O.... another factor was that all her properties were robbed. It seems to us that undoubtedly there was a sensation as soon as the public started talking that a Hindu widow had not only become a Muslim but also married a Muslim and was also deprived of all her property. So, it is all the more difficult to understand this complacency of Jatin Babu who stood surety for Kanakprova. Although on the date the sale took place, he was no longer the surety according to P.W.9, negotiation took place 15 or 20 days before that and but for the representation of Jatin Babu he would not have been induced to buy the property as he did. It is curious that inspite of such representation Jatin Babu failed to take charge of at least of the sale proceeds. It may well be that the money was deposited in the bank or spent according to the wishes of Kanakprova but it was for Jatin Babu to explain his position in the transaction. But he has not done this. Jatin Babu is a very senior Mukhtear, Apart from being a surety, when Kanakprova escaped from his control, as a respectable member of the Bar, he should not have remained quiet over all that happened at Miajan's house and there is nothing to show that he took any steps to trace her out or that he made any complaint against anybody in respect of her. So on the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the conduct of Jatin Babu was not what is expected of a member of the profession to which he belongs. So, we find that he is guilty of misconduct and is liable for action u/s 14, Legal Practitioners Act. But as he has been under suspension for nearly 2 years by now and he is nearly 69 years old, we consider that he has been sufficiently punished. 18. So, we find that he is guilty of misconduct and is liable for action u/s 14, Legal Practitioners Act. But as he has been under suspension for nearly 2 years by now and he is nearly 69 years old, we consider that he has been sufficiently punished. 18. So, we accept this reference but in view of the above circumstances, we only confirm the period of suspension already undergone by him and take no other disciplinary action against him. Shahabuddin J. 19. I agree.