Mathura Prasad Singh vs Emperor

Dawson Miller, C.J.—This is an application on behalf of Mathura Prasad Singh formerly practising as a mukhtar at Motihari. He was guilty of a serious offence in the course of his professional duties which I need not refer to in detail here as it has been the subject of an enquiry and was referred to again when an application was made to this Court for his reinstatement. On the 12th March, 1917, in consequence of the offence to which I have referred, his case was dealt with by a Bench of three Judges of this Court and owing to the gravity of the offence which was proved, his certificate was cancelled and he was debarred from further practice. Five years later in May 1922 he applied to this Court asking the Court to reinstate him in his practice as a mukhtar alleging that since he was debarred some five years earlier he had endeavoured to lead an honest and straight forward life and certain certificates from various people giving him a good character were produced before the Court. We considered, however, on that occasion, in view of the gravity of his offence, that the probationary period through which he had passed was not sufficient to enable us to arrive definitely at the conclusion that he had in fact reinstated his character so as to make it safe for the Court to reinstate him as a member of an honourable profession. The certificates produced on that occasion were not very full and did not really give the Court sufficient information upon which it could safely act. Consequently the application was at that time refused.

The present application, made some two years later is fortified by full particulars of the life which the petitioner has led since he was debarred from further practice in March 1917. It appears that in 1918 he did some work for Mr. Kailaspati, a Vakil of this Court and Mr. Kailaspati has given him a certificate of good character stating that he found him well behaved, diligent and honest in his work. In the year 1919, he was engaged as an Assistant Manager in the Cawnpore Branch of the "General Trading Company" during apart of that year. He was in charge of the stock of papers as well as of the sales and cash and the certificate given by Mr. Upadhya, a Vakil of this Court, whose family was connected with that business, states that he discharged his duties faithfully and honestly, and that subsequently in the same year he worked at Mr. Upadhya''s zemindari at Ramnagar in the Champaran district being partly in charge of the collection work and partly in charge of Court cases, that he proved diligent and trustworthy and did his work well. Mr. Upadhya further says that he comes of a respectable kayasth family. In the early part of the year 1920 he obtained employment with the "Jharia Iron and Brass Works" at Jharia in Manbhum and the proprietor of that concern states that during that time he found him honest and truthful. Later in the same year he worked for about six months with the "Choudhury Coal Co." also at Jharia, He kept correspondence and accounts and he also purchased and sold coal. The proprietor of that concern states that he found him straight forward and reliable and he left his service of his own accord when he got employment with Messrs. Dulichand-Prabhudayal of Jharia. He then entered the service of the Dulichand Prabhudayal Coal Co. at Jharia in the year 1920, the proprietor of which concern Prabhudayal Gupta states that he thoroughly satisfied himself as to his character and ability before giving him an appointment. He was appointed as manager of the firm in January 1921 and since that time he has remained in that service. His duties were to look after Court cases concerning the firm, the purchase and sale of coal and to keep accounts and also to go on occasions to the mufassil to realise arrears from customers and he had the management of work on a considerable scale and large sums of money passed through his hand during that time. He was getting Rs. 50 per month plus a commission upon the net profits and the proprietor certified that his conduct has been quite satisfactory and praiseworthy and he has proved himself trustworthy and he strongly recommends him for any position of trust.

That shortly is the history of this young man since he was debarred from further practice in 1917. There are in addition a number of certificates from judicial and executive officers at Dhanbad, that is, in the neighbourhood in which he was residing and in which he was employed. They are all to the same effect that they have found him honest and straightforward and further that they have found him courteous and self-respecting. I need not refer to them in detail. I am glad to find also that in the petition which he himself has presented to this Court, he fully recognises the gravity of his offence and has expressed his great penitence and his determination to set himself a high standard of morality and honesty as a guide in his future life. I have no doubt that this young man whose certificate was cancelled after two years'' practice as a mukhtar has since that time honestly endeavoured to reinstate his character. He has also realised that his offence was a grave one and has made up his mind for the future to live a straight forward and honest life. In these circumstances seeing that it was seven years ago that he was debarred I think our manifest duty is to give him another chance. I am satisfied that he is endeavouring to lead an honest and straightforward life and I hope in the future he will continue to do so. I think that his application should be granted. The order made on the 12th March, 1917, debarring him from further practice will be cancelled and he may apply in the ordinary course for the grant of a fresh certificate.

Foster, J.

I agree.

Kulwant Sahay, J.

I agree.