ROSE! O. J.—In re Je Soyza
1954Present: Rose C.J., Gratlaen J. and Sansonl J.In re S. M. C. dg SOYZAI11 the matter of the-Rule on Proctor S. M. C. de Soyza
Proctor—Suspension from office—-Courts Ordinance, s. 17.
Proctor suspended from office for three years for issuing false certificates tocertain persons enabling tt»em to obtain Emergency or Identity Certificates.
t~^ UTjK on a Proctor.
lJ. Jansze, Acting Solicitor-General, with J. W. Subasinghe, CrownCounsel, for the Attorney-General.
V. Ranawake, with G. T. Samaraivickreme and A. Nagemlra, forthe respondent.
S. J. Kadirganiar, with G. L. L. de Silva, for the Law Society.
July 19, 1954. Rose C.J.—
In this matter it is alleged that the respondent, who is a Proctor of theSupreme Court, issued on five separate occasions and to five separate per-sons certificates under regulations made under the Immigrants andEmigrants Act, No. 20 of 1948.
The respondent admits that in the case of these live persons he issuedcertificates to the effect that he had known them personally for a period oftwo years and that from his personal knowledge of them he could vouchfor them as being fit and proper persons to receive Emergency or IdentityCertificates. He further certified that to the best of his personalknowledge and belief the statements of the applicants and the declara-tions on the forms were true and that tho applicants were citizens ofCeylon.
Now it is relevant to observe that that certificate, in order to be of any useto the person to whom it was issued, had to be signed by a limited class ofpersons, one of which is an Advocate or Proctor of the Supreme Court, andtho certificates in question were signed by the respondent stating that hewas a Proctor of the Supreme Court and a Commissioner for Oaths, andthe certificates were also accompanied by a rubber, stamp to the sameeffect.
Upon the respondent’s own admission it seems to us to be clear, and itis not even seriously contended to the contrary by learned Counsel for thorespondent, that he has brought himself within the purview of Section 17of the Courts Ordinance, and it is merely a matter for us to considerwhat penalty should be imposed.
288ROSE O.J.—In re de Soyza
It is obviouB, ami I hope it is unnecessary for us to stress, how entirelyundesirable and improper it is for a professional man to issue certificatesof this kind which ho knows are false and are going to be acted upon bythe authorities on the basis that they are true.
We have given careful consideration to the question as to whether woshould not strike off the respondent from the Roll of Proctors. In thocircumstances, however, and in regard to the number of years that ho haspractised, wo think that justice would be done if we suspend him from 1hooffice of a Proctor of the Supreme Court for a period of three years.
The respondent will also pay the costs of these proceedings to thoAttorney-General which we assess at Rs. 262 ■ 50.
Gratiaen J.—I agree.
Sansoni J.—I agree.
Rule made absolute.
In re S. M. C. DE SOYZA
ROSE! O. J.—In re Je Soyza