In Re Amarasinghe Attorney At Law… – sllr 1981 volume 1 page 384

In the disciplinary proceedings between the judicial authority (initiator under Section 42(2) of the Judicature Act) and the Respondent, an Attorney-at-Law and former District Judge and Magistrate of Homagama, the Court considered whether the Respondent had falsified the official record by removing a journal entry dated 12th February 1981 and substituting it with a newly written page, and whether this act constituted malpractice or deceit as defined by law. The evidence established that the Respondent’s actions involved an amplification rather than suppression or falsification, and no element of dishonest intent was proven. The doctrines applicable, including nunc pro tunc, and the standard of proof required for charges of professional misconduct, were analyzed. It was held that a mere pro