1. Translate the following English Passage into the ordinary language spoken in courts using Devnagri Script.
The ability of the lawyer to confuse others by the use of words has long been the subject of proverb. And yet, no matter what else may be said of him or her, the lawyer, in his or her field -even as the physician and the priest in theirs -remains the last resource of other men and women. When the wisdom of common man fails them and disaster is at hand when the laymen's brain is overworked till his mental fuse burns out; when the motor car of "Business" blows out its tires and piles up in the ditches of insolvency; when the human derelict is finally tossed upon the rocks of the stormy seas of life; then the lawyer is sent for handling the situation.
Bulk of lawyers work consists in preparing documents etc. It is an open secret that the lawyer, who speaks very good English, falls short of when he writes it. The lawyer seems to loose his mastery of words when he puts his pen, instead of his tongue, to the task of expressing them in statutes, in judicial opinions or in legal documents. It is an ancient charge that the lawyer, as compared to other writers, is prolix and muddy in his literary style and is unduly given to the overuse of words.

It may be truly said that the font and style of our written laws make up of a chief cause for complaint against the language of the lawyer. For laws, like the poor, are not always with us, they are above us and around us and almost reach within us. They must be read and obeyed -and therefore understood -by laymen as well as lawyers; since ignorance of the law excuses no man. For obvious reasons therefore, laws should be as clear and simple as possible. Yet, strangely enough, it is in this matter of writing laws that the lawyer often reaches and surpasses the limits of human capacity.
The chief fault of lawyers is certainly that of prolixity. Webster defines "prolix" as "extending to great length", and then in a note he says: "prolixity is one of the worst qualities of style." There are, of course, deep and subtle reasons for the prolixity of what lawyers write reasons which lawyers do not generally realize or understand. They lie chiefly in two ever-present factors: a constant and inherent complexity of subject matter, and an urge towards guarded and cautious language. It may be from experience, it may be from instinct -but the lawyer uses his pen as if it were an old
fashioned musket he is always afraid of the "kick" when the thing goes off. Lawyers who are intellectually honest will recognize this tendency toward prolixity in their own experience, and will constantly be on their guard against it.
Another chief defect in the writing of lawyers is the fact that they prefer to go round a subject with their words rather than straight to it. In their use of language they prefer a steam shovel rather than a spade -and then they neglect to cast away the rubbish.
It may be admitted -indeed it must not only be admitted but asserted -that the lawyer's problem in writing is a difficult one. Whether he has to write a statute, a deed, a will or what not, the lawyer must do more than the average writer. A lawyer must so word his document that it will be impossible to misconstrue it. The average writer does not have this problem; he need only write for the average reader. In other words, he so writes that his words ought not to be misconstrued; but the lawyer must so write that his words cannot be misconstrued. To put the matter another way, the average writer may expect good faith -that is, an honest intention to get at the

meaning of what is written -from his reader. The lawyer, on the other hand, must anticipate bad faith on the part of many of his readers and must guard against it.

3.
Write a precis in English of the following passage:
In 1922 Gandhiji was arrested and charged with sedition for three of his articles in his magazine, Young India. At the conclusion of the trial Gandhiji was asked by the judge if he wished to make a statement before receiving sentence. The following statement was then read:
low e it perhaps to the Indian public and to the public in England to placate which this prosecution is mainly taken up that I should explain why from a staunch loyalist and cooperator I have become an uncompromising dis-affection is t and non-cooperator. To the court too I should say why I plead guilty to the charge of promoting disaffection toward the government established by law in India.
Section 124 under which I am charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen. Affection cannot be manufactured or regulated by law. If one has an affection for a person or system, one should be free to give the fullest expression to his disaffection, so long as he does not contemplate, promote, or incite to violence. I have studied some of the cases tried under it, and I know that some of the most loved of India's patriots have been convicted under it. I consider it a privilege, therefore, to be charged under that section. I have no personal ill will against any single administrator. But I hold it to be a virtue to be disaffected toward a government which in its totality has done more harm to India than any previous system. It has been a precious privilege for me to be able to write what I have in the various articles, tendered in evidence against me.
The law itself in this country has been used to serve the foreign exploiter. My unbiased examination of the Punjab Martial law cases has led me to believe that at least ninety­five percent of convictions were wholly bad. My experience of political cases in India leads me to the conclusion that in nine out of every ten the condemned men were totally innocent. Their crime consisted in the love of their country. In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred justice has been denied to Indians as against Europeans in the courts of India. This is not an exaggerated picture. It is the experience of almost every Indian who has had anything to do with such cases. In my opinion, the administration of the law is thus prostituted consciously or unconsciously for the benefit of the exploiter.
In fact, I believe that I have rendered a service to India by showing in non-eo-operation the way out of the unnatural state in which we are living. In my humble opinion, non cooperation with evil is as much a duty as is co-operation with good. Non violence implies voluntary submission to the penalty for non co-operation with evil. I am here, therefore, to invite and submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen. The only course open to you, the judge, is either to resign your post, and thus dissociate yourself from evil if you feel that the law you are called upon to administer is an evil and that in reality I am innocent, or to inflict on me the severest penalty if you believe that the system and the law you are assisting to administer are good for the people of this country and that my activity is therefore injurious to the public.