051-NLR-NLR-V-72-In-re-U.-BATUVANTUDAVE.pdf
] 9S
In re Batiivantuda.ee
1967Present.: T. S. Fernando, A.C.J., Tambiah, J.,and AlJes, J.In re U. BATUVANTUDAVE
S. C. No. B 52 of 1967—In the matter of an application byUpali Batxivantudave for readmission and re-enrol merit as anAdvocate of the Supreme Court
Advocate—Name struck off roll of Advocates—Headmission on proof of rc-establishmentof character—Whether recall to English Bar is condition precedent if he. wascalled to that Bur.
Tho applicant had been called to the English Bar and was subsequentlyenrolled as on Advocate in Ceylon on August 4, 1932. His name was struck offtho Roll of Advocates on October 3, 1937, because ho was convicted cf certainoffences in the District Court of Colombo on Juno 19, 1936. About 13 yearsafter he was disbarred, his application for readmission ns an Advocate wasdismissed on April 5, 1950- Tho present application for rcadmission was. presented by him inoro than 17 years after tho rejection of tho first. There wassufficient proof that ho expiated his offences and To-established his character.
Held, that the applicant’s naino should bo restored to tho Roll of Advocates.It was not a pre condition to his rcadmission that he should have been recalledto tho English Bar.
T'tlES was an application by the petitioner for rcadmission andre-enrolment- as an Advocate of the Supreme Court.
B. JVikramanuyafee, Q.C., with 31. Jtafeek, for the applicant.
A. C. 31. Ameer, Q.C., Attorney-General, with 31. Kanagasunderam,Crown Counsel, as amicus curiae on notice from the Court.
T. S. FERNANDO, A-C.J.—In re Batuvantudave
] 90
A. 11. C. de Silva, Q.C., with B. Ji. S. R. Coomarasivamy and DesmondFernando, for the General Council of Advocates, as amicus curiae atthe instance of the Court.
Cur. adv. vull.
December 11, 1967. T. S. Fernando, A.C.J.—
The applicant who had been called to the English Bar was admittedand enrolled as an Advocate of this Court on August 4, 1932. Rule 51(as it then stood) of the Rules set out in the Second Schedule to theCourts Ordinance permitted persons called to the English Bar to be soadmitted and enrolled. He was convicted on June 19, 1936 in the DistrictCourt of Colombo on .charges which alleged that he had committedverjr serious offences involving gross fraud in each ”. His name wasstruck off the Roll of Advocates on October 8, 1937. Some thirteen yearsafter his disenrolment he applied to the Court for re-admission as anAdvocate, and this Court, having given the matter very carefulconsideration, dismissed his application on April 5,-1950—rsee In re..Batuvantudave 1. This second application for readmission has beenpresented more than 17 years after the rejection of the first, andnearly a third of a century after the disenrolment.
In an affidavit attached to his petition the applicant sets out themanner in which he has since his conviction by the court and subsequentdisenrolment from the profession led an honest and industrious life,devoting his time to religious and cultural pursuits. We must take notealso of the fact that during this period he had been elected to the country’sthen legislature, the State Council, and served as a member thereoffor some seven years. To this affidavit he has attached a number ofcertificates from men who have held high and distinguished office inthis Country, certificates which go to prove that the applicant hasexpiated his offences and re-established his character. In thesecircumstances he is entitled to a favourable reception by us of hispresent application.
Where an advocate had been convicted of cheating and had subse-quently been disenrolled, this Court,—(see In re Seneviratne 2)—whileit refused readmission where an application therefor had been madeeven before five years had elapsed since disenrolment, however acceptedthe proposition that- it had power to readmit when an applicant hasexpiated his offence and redeemed his character. While the presentapplicant’s earlier attempt to gain readmission, although made- somethirteen years after disenrolment, failed, we have to remember thatthirty years have now passed since the day the applicant lost his rightto practise his profession in our Courts. He is said to be 57 years of agetoday, and the offences which entailed the loss of his professional rightswere committed in 1935 when he was but 25 years old.
It is not clear whether he intends actively to pursue a professionalcareer, but in regard to our inquiry relative thereto, we have beenreferred by the learned Attorney-General to the observations of this1 (I960) 51 N. L. R. 513.• (1928) 30 N. L. R. 299.
200
Garlis Singho v. Geeger Siiigho
Court in In re an Advocate*. Tho Court, while there affirming the viewtaken on an earlier occasion that “ we should be very careful in admittingto tho profession a man who has been guilty of a crime of dishonesty ”,went on to endorse the following opinion :—“ But that is not to saythat character once lost cannot be redeemed In that case the Courtalso observed that it saw no reason why the intention of the applicantbefore it to continue his career as a teacher should stand in the way ofhis rcadmission to the profession of advocates.
A point touching procedure did at one stage of the hearing cause ussome concern. As the applicant came to be admitted here by virtue ofhis call to the English Bar from which too we assume he has beendisbarred, the question did arise in our minds whether a pre-conditionto his readmission is not a recall to the English Bar. The learned Attorne37-Gcncral and the learned Queen’s Counsel who appeared on behalf ofthe General Council of Advocates both submitted that such a recall isnot imperative, a submission endorsed by the applicant’s counselas well.
I might add that for the first time in the case of applications of thisnature the Court invited the presence at the hearing of counsel on behalfof the Gcnex*al Council of Advocates, as we deemed it prudent to hearany submission the Council wished to make either for or against theapplication. Counsel who so appeared made no submission and offeredno argument tending towards a rejection of this application. Nor indeeddid the learned Attorney-General. In these circumstances we makeorder in this case directing a restoration of the name of the applicantto the Roll of Advocates of this Court.
Tambtau, J.—I agree.
Atxiss, J.—I agree.
Application allowed.