Passey, J.

1. On the morning of 5-5-1950 one Jai Lal of village Nanhera Tehsil Dadhi came to Patiala to file a civil revision and on getting down the train at 7 a.m. he proceeded straight to the High Court where he expected to meet Shri Amar Nath Advocate for whom he had brought a letter of .introduction from Shri Suraj Bhan, his Pleader in the lower Court at Narnaul. On the Mall he happened to meet Balder Kishan, who had been declared a tout by the High Court, and asked him as to where he could find Shri Amar Nath. He was told in reply that Shri Amar Nath was called Diwan Sahib and was offered to be taken to his house. Jai Lal accompanied Balder Kishan who instead of taking him to Shri Amar Nath took him to the house of Shri Jai Kishan. Jai Lal made over his brief to Shri Jai Kishan and also gave him Rs. 38/- out of which Rs. 20/- was; to be retained by the counsel in part payment of his fee and the balance spent on court-fee etc.

2. Kushi-Ram and Shadi Ram. clerks of Shri Jai Kishan, brought Jai Lal to the High Court compound where he came to know that a rouse-had been played upon him and that Balder Kishan had got him to engage Shri Jai Kishan in place of Shri Amar Nath. The news of the deception got afloat and some lawyers clerks enquired of him if he could point out to them the man who had taken him to the house of Shri Jai Kishan. Jai Lal led those clerks to the place from where he was asked by Balder Kishan to follow him and was successful in tracing him out there. Balder Kishan was then playing cards or standing by some persons who were at cards. Jai Lal told the clerks accompanying him that he was the man who had got Shri Jai Kishan engaged. On returning back to the Bar Room Jai Lal complained verbally about the deception to Shri Atma Ram, President of the Bar Association. Balder Kishan was sent for and in his presence and that of Sari Jai Kishan Jai Lal repeated that accusation Shri Atma Ram directed him to file a Written complaint and on his doing so directed the Secretary of the Association to record the statement of the complainant as also that of Shri JalKishan, if necessary, and to hold a thorough . The result of that enquiry, if it was bled is not known.

3. On the same day Jai Lai and Shri Amar Nath Advocate filed a joint complaint under Section 420 I.P.C against Balder Kishan in the Court of the, A.D.M. Patiala and Shri Jai Kishan returned to-him the money that he had received from -Jai Lal. The trial Court acquitted Balder Kishan; taut the State appeal against that acquittal was accepted by this Court and he was convicted on 29-9-1952 under Section 420 read with Section 75 I. P. C. and sentenced to 6 months R.I. Section 75, I. P. C. was held to apply as the accused bad once before also been convicted and sentenced for cheating. on the criminal case instituted by Jai Lal and Shri Amar Nath, Shri Jai Kishan and his clerks. Khushi Ram and Shadi Ram, had appeared as defence witnesses. Their evidence was discussed at length and they were disbelieved. It was/also observed in the judgment of this Court dated 29-9-1952 that Shri Jai Kishans conduct in getting the case through a tout must be looked at With disfavor. After the decision of that case, notice was issued to Shri Jai Kishan under the Legal. Practitioners Act to show cause why his license be not cancelled; as he had accepted Jai Lals brief through Balder Kishan who had been declared a tout by the High Court.

4. Shri Jai Kishan submitted his reply in which he denied the charge. The prosecution examined Jai Lal, Shri Atma Ram and Shri Amar Nath as also Amar Nath Puri, and Babu Ram clerks of Shri Atma Ram and Shri Dalip Chand respectively. S. Katar Singh Sandhu, Registrar of the High Court, produced the original resolution adopted to the Judges meeting on 13-12-47 accepting the recommendation or the Bar Association that Balder Kishan be declared a tout. A "copy of that resolution was placed on the record rebuttal Shri Jai Kishan put himself in the witness-box and also produced and examined his two clerks, Khushi Ram and Shadi Ram. It was admitted by him (Shri Jai Kishan) that he knew that Balder Kishan was a declared tout and that once before also he had been convicted under Section 420, I. P. C. He also admitted that Balder Kishan had been visiting his office every now and then and that from 5-5-1950 he had stopped him from seeing him. Explaining as to how he had been engaged in the case in question he at first stated that one Kishan Lai had brought Jai Lal to his office; but he changed immediately and said that Kishan Lai had not entered his Office but only pointed it out to Jai Lal. In his Statement as a defence witness before the Magistrate who had tried the Section 420, I. P. C. case against Balder Kishan, he had not disclosed the name of Kishan Lal. He was asked as to why he had then suppressed- Kishan Lals name and he replied that his hesitation was due to the fact that people thought that he (Kishan Lai) was a tout by profession and that he himself also took him to be a tout.

5. There are, thus, two versions before us-one that Shri Jai Kishan had accepted Jai Lais brief through Balder Kishan whom he knew to have been declared a tout and the other that he had been engaged by Jai Lal to whom his house had been pointed out by Kishan Lal. This being his first visit to the city, Jai Lai was a stranger to Patiala and did not. know anybody there. He was dishonestly induced by Balder Kishan to believe that Shri Amar Nath was called Dowan Sahib and that, he would be taken to Shri Amar Nath whom he had intended to" engage for filing the revision petition. It is not disputed that he reached the house of; Shri Jai Kishan within about an hour of his alighting from the train. It is also not denied, that Shri Jai Kishan returned Rs. 38/- to Jai Lal after he had filed his complaint under Section 420, I, P. C. against Balder Kishan. Be fore us Jai Lal stated that he was token to the house of Shri Jai Kishan by Balder Kishan. He had named Balder Kishan as the person who had led him to Shri Jai Kishans house even to the lawyers clerks who had enquired of him if he could identify him. Not only that, he had actually led them to the place on the Mall from where he had been taken with him by Balder Kishan. It was a coincidence that he was able to find Balder Kishan near about the very place from where he had been asked by him to follow him. He had at once pointed him out to the clerks as the man who had made him to accompany him. Then again in the presence of the President of the Bar Association and of Shri Jai Kishan and Balder Kishan, he accused Balder Kishan of having taken him to Shri Jai Kishan. Kishan Lal, who was stated by Shri Jai Kishan to have shown his house to Jai Lai, was not produced. According to Shadi Ram D. W. Shri Jai Kishan was not in his office but inside his residential house when Jai Lal had entered his office.

That would show that Shri Jai Kishan could not know as to who had introduced Jai Lal into his office. His other clerk Khushi Ram has not been able to state anything on the point; as according to him he had reached later. Shadi Ram could not give the name of the person who had pointed out Shri Jai Krishnas office to Jai Lal. The defence set up by Shri Jai Kishan is an after-thought and on his own showing Kishan Lal was also a tout. Shri Jai Kishan has not been able to urge anything against the prosecution witnesses, two out of whom are his colleagues. There is nothing to detract from the veracious statement of Jai Lal and nothing has been urged against it by Shri Jai Kishan. The witness did not know the Respondent before and there could, therefore, be no cause for him to involve him falsely. We have, therefore, no hesitation in discarding the defence story and in holding that Shri Jai Kishan did accept employment in a judicial case through a person who had been declared as a tout by the High Court.

6. The charge against hint being clearly established it becomes a case in which disciplinary action under Section 13, Legal Practitioners Act must be taken. We have already in Anr. case today suspended Shri Jai Kishan from practice for two months, as we found the charge of professional misconduct proved against him. He had deliberately given a false affidavit in that case. The present is the first case of its type in Pepsu. For these reasons we are inclined to inflict minor punishment of suspension and order that his license shall be suspended for one month. The suspension in this case shall take effect after the suspension in the other case decided today comes to an end.

Teja Singh, C.J.

7. I agree.