RAJIV DAWAR versus HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Citation: [2017] 6 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 26-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 6 S.C.R. 411 
RAJNDAWAR 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF DELHI 
(CriminalAppealNo. 51 of2007) 
JULY 26, 2017 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
A 
B 
ss. 2(c), JO and I 5 rlw. Art. 215 of Constitution of India ~ 
Complaint before subordinate Court - By an accused undergoing 
C 
trial in criminal case under NDPS Act - Against his advocate -
Alleging that the advocate had charged exorbitant fees and had 
also withdrawn from the case - The complainant prayed for refund 
of part of his fees - Reference to High Court - High Court held him 
guilty of criminal contempt - On appeal held: In view of the facts 
D 
that contemnor was completely absolved of the allegations by 
disciplinary authority; that procedural safeguards were not followed; 
and that the contemnor ·had complied with the direction to refund 
the fee, conviction and sentence imposed on the contemnor, set aside 
- Appeal allowed. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 51 of 2007 .. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.01.2007 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Cr!. C. Ref. No. 2 of2005. 
E 
K. V. Vishwanathan, Sr. Adv., Ashok Mathur, Ms. Nidhi Agrawal, 
F 
Sameer Dawar, Dhananjay Ray, Advs. for the Appellant. 
C. K. Sucharita, Adv. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by 
G 
the conviction and sentence under section 2( c) read with Section I 0 & 
15 of Contempt of Courts Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution 
of India. Under the Contempt of Courts Act a fine of Rs.2,000/- was 
imposed and under Article 215 of the Constitution oflndia the appellant 
was suspended from practice for a period of two months. 
411 
H 
, 
412 
A 
B 
.c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 6 S.C.R. 
2. The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing 
for the appellant is that the whole conviction is based on the unilateral 
version of the complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, New 
Delhi. Either before the Additional Sessions Judge at the time of reference 
to the High Court or at the stage of the proceedings in the High Court, 
the appellant was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence, or at 
least cross examine the de facto complainant. We find that the learned 
amicus before the High Court had also requested the High Court to 
comply with the procedural formalities giving full opportunity to the 
appellant to disabuse the allegations against him. In contempt proceedings, 
the contemnor has to be given an opportunity to establish his innocence. 
From the proceedings it is seen that the appellant was not granted such 
an opportunity except the opportunity of filing an affidavit. On the facts 
of this case, unless the allegations made by the de facto complainant 
who was an accused in a criminal' case under the N.D.P.S. Act; had 
actually been established or proved in accordance with law, there could 
D 
not have been a conviction based solely on tlfe allegations. The situation 
could have been different had at least at the time of reference by the 
Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant had been given an opportunity 
to participate in the enquiry and cross examine the complainant. 
On facts, we do not find that any such exercise had been undertaken 
E 
even by the Additional Sessions Judge while making a reference to the 
High Court. 
3. lt is a case where the de facto complainant made an allegation 
that the appellant had charged exorbitant fees to the tune of Rs. 7 .05 
Lacs, without any active assistance to the accused and also withdrawn 
from the case and, therefore, he prayed for a direction to the Additional 
. F 
Sessions Judge for refund of at least Rs.6 Lacs. However, it was the 
case of the appellant that for professional services rendered to the de 
facto complainant appropriate fees had been charged and it was not as 
if the amount received was for any other purpose as alleged by the 
complainant. 
G 
· 4. lt is seen that the Bar Council of Delhi ha:d also looked into this 
H 
complaint and in the order dated 30.09.2006, at paragraph 12, it has 
been held as follows:-
"12. An advocate should not ordinarily withdraw from 
engagements, once accepted, without sufficient cause and unless 
reasonable and sufficient notices is given to the client. Upon his 
RAJIV DAWAR v. HIGH COURT OF DELHI 
413 
[KURIAN JOSEPH, J.] 
withdrawal from a case, he shall refund such part of the fee as 
A 
has not been earned. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.