012-NLR-NLR-V-60-THE-SOLOCOTORGENERAL-Applicant-and-A.-N.-A.-ABDUL-CADER-Respondent.pdf
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—The Solicitor-General v. Abdul Coder
49
1958 Present: Basnayake, C.J., Weerasooriya, J., and Sansoni, J.THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Applicant, and A. *N. A. ABDTJL
CADER, Respondent
Application APN/2/58—In the matter op- a Rule issued on aProctor under Section 17 op the Courts Ordinance, onthe Application of the Solicitor-General
Proctor—Misconduct—Removal from office—Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6), s. 17.
The respondent was convicted of criminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 28/50entrusted to him as a Proctor. His conduct in the transaction showed that hedid not realise the responsibilities of his office.
Held, that in the circumstances the respondent’s name should be struck out ofthe Roll of Proctors.
D
-I ULE issued on a Proctor on the application of the Solicitor-General.
A. C. Alles, Acting Solicitor-Geneial, with Arthur Keunermn, CrownCounsel, and H. L. de Silva, Crown Counsel, for Applicant.
N. K. Cholcsy, Q.C., with M. Marhhani, A. Nagendra and G. E. dePinto, for Respondent.
Cur. adv. vult.
July 18, 1958. Basnayake, C.J.—
In the instant matter the respondent does not seek to shew causeagainst the exercise of the disciplinary powers of this Court. Learnedcounsel on his behalf submits that having regard to the circumstancesof his case the respondent’s conduct does not merit removal from office.The only question we have therefore to decide is whether the respondentshould be suspended from practice or whether he should be removedfrom office.
The material facts shortly are as follows: The respondent who wasadmitted as a proctor of the Supreme Court in the year 1952 was convictedon 21st October 1957 by the District Court of Colombo of the offence ofcriminal breach of trust of a sum of Rs. 28*50 entrusted to him in hiscapacity as a proctor by one Candappa who sought his professionalservices. This sum was sent by cheque on 8th September 1955 to therespondent in reply to a post card from him dated 18th May 1955. Thepost card reads—
“Notice under section 219 was served on the defendant. Hefailed to appear in court on the 13th instant. I have therefore movedfor attachment which is returnable on the 1st of July. If you wantme to issue the attachment please send me a money older for Rs. 28 * 50being stamp fees and subsistence money for the arrest and productionof the defendant. Please attend to this early. ”
3-LX
’ 2—J. N. B 8208—1,59$ (10/58)
50
BASNAYAKE, C.J.—The Solicitor-General Abdul Coder
The cheque was cashed on 13th September 1955. As the respondenthad not, for nearly two months after he had remitted the necessaryexpenses, taken steps to have a warrant for the arrest of the judgment-debtor issued, his client wrote to him the following letter on 10thNovember 1955:—
“ Dear Mr. Abdul Cader,
I regret to inform you that nothing was heard of re my case withPercy Perera. I. saw him on Monday near your office. Will youplease let me know why this delay in executing the attachment aftermy giving you all the particulars where and when to arrest him. Ifyou cannot get the Fiscal to execute the attachment, please let me know.- and” oblige
As the. respondent continued not only to take no action but also to besilent his client again wrote to him on 19th November 1955 in the following. terms –
. “Dear Sir,
I have to draw your immediate attention to my letter dated the10th instant. Please let me know if you are unable to attend to this. matter and oblige. ”
The respondent paid no heed even to this letter. His client then methim in person at his office on 18th January 1956, and he undertook to, attend to this matter and asked his client to meet him at his office thenext day. From 9.30 in the morning till 3.30 in the afternoon of thefollowing day his client waited for him in his office; but he failed toturn up. Displeased at the treatment meted out to him by the res-pondent, his client wrote the following letter on 24th January 1956
and sent it by registered post:—
" ’ *’»
. am writing this letter as a final warning to you and I trust thatyou will not overlook the seriousness of this matter. Since I sent youthe cheque to cover the cost of Fiscal charges to obtain the attachmentI repeatedly wrote to you to expedite the matter but to my greatsurprise and regret you not only neglected entirely to take out theattachment you have failed to deposit the Fiscal charges sent to you, „ by me and further you even did not care to reply any of my letters'sent to you.”
“ You will also remember when I. met you in Colombo at youroffice on the 18th instant you told me that you will attend to thebusiness and asked me to meet you on the following day at 9.30 a.m.You did not turn up as promised. I waited until 3.30 p.m. That was•an insult to injury. However I must plainly tell you that you cannotattend to this as I see that you are in sympathy with the defendantas you said that he came to see you more than five times. Pleasetherefore refund the monies I have entrusted to you in this case andcancel the proxy. But remember that you have to pay me all thestamp fees for filing the new proxy because the fault is yours.
“ I hope that you will riot give the unpleasantness to go further, in the matter. ”
BASTfAYAKE, C.J.—The Solicitor-General v. Abdul Coder
51
Seeing that the respondent persisted in taking no notice of his lettershis client wrote to him on 16th February 1956 as follows :•—
“ Will you please deposit the Rs. 28'50 entrusted to you as stampfees and subsistence money for the arrest and production of thedefendant. It is nearly six months you are keeping the money withoutdepositing. You have overtaxed my patience. You have treatedme very badly. Do not blame me if you get into trouble. Thisis my last warning. ”
Even this letter neither evoked a reply nor moved the respondent toaction.
On 1st March 1956 the respondent was appointed President of theRural Court of Vavuniya. This appointment meant that he couldno longer practise as a proctor. But even then the respondent did notinform his client of his appointment and ask him to. revoke his proxyand appoint another proctor. As his efforts to get the respondent toattend to his case were of no avail Candappa complained of the respon-dent’s conduct by letter to the Solicitor-General. The Police thenbegan to investigate the complaint. After Inspector Jnsey recordedhis statement in July 1956 the respondent called on Candappa alongwith another proctor by name Leslie Peiris at Ratnapura and offeredto pay back the sum of Rs. 28'50 and a sum of Rs. 200 of the judgment-debt obtained from Percy Perera. Candappa refused to accept themoney as his complaint was under investigation.
The respondent gave evidence on his own behalf at the trial. Tbplearned trial Judge has not only rejected his evidence but has also foundhim to be untruthful.
The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention toinstances1 in which this Cottrt has taken the course of suspension fromoffice, and the learned Solicitor-General has referred us to instances*in which the course of removal from office has been taken. It isunnecessary to discuses these cases as each case must depend on its merits.
The respondent’s conduct in the transaction which resulted in hisconviction of the offence of criminal breach of trust showB that he doesnot realise the responsibilities of his office. The respondent has not onlyappropriated to his own use money entrusted to him in his professionalcapacity; but he has to the detriment of his client also neglected hisprofessional duties and prevented him from pursuing his legal remedyagainst his judgment-debtor for over two years.
A proctor is an officer of this Court whom this Court holds out to suitorsas a person who can he trusted to advise them, and to undertake theiraffairs, or in whom they may with safety place their confidence. Can
1 In re Senaratne, {1953) 55 N. L. B. 97-In re a Proctor, {1933) 36 N. L. B. 9.
In re a Solicitor, 61 L. T. {N. S.) 342.
In re BUI, 18 L. T. (N. S.) 564 at 566.
In re Mohamad, {1946) 48 N. L. B. 29.
* In re Cooke, {1939) 41 N L. B. 206.
In re Weare, {1893) 2 Q. B. D. 439.
In re Abeydeera, (1932) 1 C. L. W. 359.
52
WEERASOORIYA, J.—Romanis v. Sherman de Silva <b Co., Ltd.
this Court any longer hold out the respondent to suitors as such a person 1There can be only one answer to that question, and that is that it can nolonger do so.
We therefore order that Ahmed Niyaz Alavi Abdul Cader, F$roctor>of the Supreme Court, be removed from his office and direct that hisname be struck out of the Boll of Proctors of this Court.
Weerasooriya, J.—I agree.
Sansoni, J.—I agree.
Respondent’s name struck out of the Roll of Proctors.