LexMAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016]4S.C.R. 184 MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 63 of2006) JULYOS,2016 [ANIL R. DAVE, KURIAN JOSEPH AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 19 -Advocates Act, 1961 - ss. 24A, 38 - Contempt of court - Advocate intimidated and threatened a civil judge on two dates - High Court found him guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for two months - Direction to State Bar Council to initiate appropriate proceedings against the advocate for professional misconduct - However, nothing done by Bar Council for few years - Interference with the order passed by the High Court - Held: In view of the inaction of the Bar Council, this Court has to exercise appellate ;urisdiction under the Advocates Act in view of proved misconduct calling for disciplinary action - This Court can exercise suo motu powers for punishing the contemnor for professional misconduct - It is also permissible for High Court u/Art. 226 in appropriate cases on failure of the Bar Council to take action after its attention is invited to the misconduct - Further, section 24A which debars a convicted person from being enrolled applies to an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council for a period of two years, if convicted for contempt - In addition thereto, unless a person purges himself of contempt or is permitted by the Court, conviction results in debarring an advocate from appearing in court even in absence of suspension or termination of the licence to practice - Thus, the conviction of the advocate is justified - However, sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is set aside in view of his advanced age - Direction that the appellant would not be permitted to appear in courts in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt is upheld - Under s. 24A, the enrollment of the appellant would stand suspended for two years from the date of this order -As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, the licence of the advocate to remain suspended for further five years - Constitution of India - Art. 226. 184 MAHIPAL SINGH RANA, ADVOCATE v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Judicial notice - Urgent need to review - Provisions of the Advocates Act dealing with regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and other incidental issues - s. 24A which debars a convicted person fro111 being enrolled applies to an advocate on the rolls of the Bar Council for a period of two years, if convicted for conte111pt and that a person convicted of even a most heinous offence is eligible to be enrolled as an advocate after expiry of two years from expiry of his sentence - Need to make suitable a111endments - In view thereof, the Law Com111issio11 of India to go into all relevant aspects relating to regulation of legal profession in consultation with all concerned - Government of India to take appropriate steps in [i,;ht of_the report. - Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The conviction of the appellant is justified and is upheld. The sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant is set aside in view of his advanced age but sentence of fine and default sentence are upheld. Further direction that the appellant would not be permitted to appear in courts in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt is also upheld. Under Section 24A of the Advocates Act, the enrollment of the appellant would stand suspended for two years from the date of this order. As a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct, the licence of the appellant would remain suspended for further five years. [Para 49) [223-B-D] 2.1 The High Court did not commit any error while coming to the conclusion that the appellant had committed contempt of Court under the provisions of the Act. Upon perusal of the facts found by the High Court and looking at the contents of the letters written by the concerned judicial officers, there is no doubt about the fact that the appellant did appear before the Court on those two days and used the language which was contemptuous in nature. [Paras 19, 20) [202-A-B] 2.2 So far as the allegations made by the appellant with regard to the complaints made by him against the complainant judge, after having held that the appellant had appeared before 185 A B c D E F G the Court and had made contemptuous statements, those averments regarding the complaints are irrelevant. The averments reg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.