LexR.K. ANAND versus REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1090 R.K. ANAND v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT (Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2008) NOVEMBER 21, 2012 [G.S. SINGHVI, AFTAB ALAM AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 2(c) clauses (ii) and C (iii) - Contempt proceedings - Initiated suo motu by High Court - Against senior advocate-contemnor - For suborning the court witness in a criminal trial, in which he represented the accused - High Court held him guilty of contempt and as a punishment prohibited him from appearing in the Delhi D High Court and the courts subordinate to it for a period of four months - However, he was left free to carry on his other professional work e.g. consultation, advices, conferences and opinions etc. - Further the court recommended the full court to divest him of the honour as a senior advocate and imposed E fine of Rs. 20001- - On appeal, Supreme Court confirmed the finding of High Court as to his guilt, but opined that the punishment was inadequate - Notice of enhancement of punishment issued - The contemnor tendered unconditional apology and in addition proposed to take certain steps to F atone his guilt i.e. (1) would donate Rs. 21 lakhs to Bar Council of India, (2) would not make any earning out of the legal profession for a period of one year and (3) would offer his services as lawyer for the period of one year for rendering legal aid to the poor and needy - Held: The action of G contemnor struck at the root of the administration of criminal justice - Therefore, normally punishment for such act should be a term of imprisonment - But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case viz. the age of the contemnor; that his wife is confined to bed and wheel chair for over 20 years; H 1090 R.K. ANAND v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT 1091 that the contempt proceedings were initiated five years ago; A that the criminal trial from which the present proceedings arose, has attained finality, lenient view taken - The offer given by contemnor accepted - The Court directed the contemnor to exclusively devote his professional services to help the accused pro bono; to place his professional services B at the disposal of Delhi Legal Services Authority, which would frame a scheme to avail contemnor's services and to appear in court only in cases assigned by the Leal Services Authority - Legal Services Authority to keep a record of the cases assigned - After one year, the contemnor permitted to start c his private law practice, but not to leave the cases, assigned through Legal Services Authority, incomplete - The contemnor to pay Rs. 21 lakhs through a demand draft to the Bar Council of India - Bar Council to give the money to a Law College preferably situated at a muffassil place for D development. of the infrastructure of the ·College - Punishment. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2008. From the Judgment & Order dated 21.8.2008 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P.(Crl.) No. 796 of 2007. L.N. Rao, Gopal Subramanium, Anand Varma, Yakshay Chhada for the Appellant. M.R. Calla, Uday Gupta, Shivani, M. Lal, M.K. Tripathi, Pratiksha Sharma, Sarthak Guru, Ankit Acharya, Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Subramonium Prasad for the Respondent. E F The Order of the Court was delivered by G AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. In a proceeding initiated suo motu [registered as Writ Petition (Criminal) No.796 of 2007), the Delhi High Court found the contemnor guilty of suborning the court witness in a criminal trial in which he represented the accused as the senior advocate. The High Court, thus, held him H I .. 1092 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 10 S.C.R. A guilty under clauses (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and in exercise of the power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India the High Court prohibited him, by way of punishment, from appearing in the Delhi High Court and the courts subordinate to it for a period of four months from B the date of the judgment dated August 21, 2008 leaving him, however, free to carry on his other professional work e.g. consultations, advices, co11ferences, opinions etc. The High Court further held that the contemnor had forfeited his right to be designated as a senior advocate and recommended to the c full court to divest him of the honour. In addition, the High Court also imposed on him a fine of Rs.2,000/-. 2. The contemnor brought the matt
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.