9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (7) TMI 1593 - SC - Indian LawsConviction for criminal contempt - Whether a case has been made out for interference with the order passed by the High Court convicting the appellant for criminal contempt and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for two months with a fine of 2, 000/- and further imprisonment for two weeks in default and debarring him from appearing in courts in judgeship at Etah? - HELD THAT - There is no merit in the contention of the appellant that there was delay on the part of the complainant Judge in sending the reference and he could have tried the appellant under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the procedure prescribed under Code of Criminal Procedure. It is for the learned judge to decide as to whether action should be taken under the Act or under any other law - The High Court has rightly convicted the appellant under the Act after having come to a conclusion that denial of the incidents and allegations of malafides against the complainant Judge had been made by the appellant to save himself from the consequences of contempt proceedings. The appellant had refused to tender apology for his conduct. His affidavit in support of stay vacation/modification and supplementary affidavit did not show any remorse and he had justified himself again and again which also shows that he had no regards for the majesty of law. It is a well settled proposition of law that in deciding whether contempt is serious enough to merit imprisonment the Court will take into account the likelihood of interference with the administration of justice and the culpability of the offender. The intention with which the act complained of is done is a material factor in determining what punishment in a given case would be appropriate. In the case at hand the High Court has rightly held that the appellant was guilty of criminal contempt. We are however inclined to set aside the sentence for imprisonment in view of advance age of the appellant. Whether on conviction for criminal contempt the appellant can be allowed to practise? - HELD THAT -Inspite of various observations no action appears to have been taken at any level. The result is 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. This aspect needs urgent attention of all concerned. There are no reason to hold that the bar applicable at the entry level is wiped out after the enrollment. Having regard to the object of the provision the said bar certainly operates post enrollment also. However till a suitable amendment is made the bar is operative only for two years in terms of the statutory provision - In these circumstances 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. What is permissible for this Court by virtue of statutory appellate power under Section 38 of the Advocates Act is also permissible to a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases on failure of the Bar Council to take action after its attention is invited to the misconduct - apart from upholding the conviction and sentence awarded by the High Court to the appellant except for the imprisonment the appellant will suffer automatic consequence of his conviction under Section 24A of the Advocates Act which is applicable at the post enrollment stage also as already observed. Conviction of the appellant is justified and is upheld - 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 - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Interference with the High Court's order convicting the appellant for criminal contempt. 2. Whether the appellant can be allowed to practice law after conviction for criminal contempt. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Interference with the High Court's Order Convicting the Appellant for Criminal Contempt Facts and Findings of the High Court: The appellant was found guilty of criminal contempt by the High Court for intimidating and threatening a Civil Judge in Etah on 16.4.2003 and 13.5.2003. The High Court sentenced the appellant to two months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ?2,000, with further imprisonment of two weeks in default of payment. The High Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to initiate proceedings against the appellant for professional misconduct. Arguments by the Appellant: The appellant denied being present in the court on the specified dates and contended that the proceedings were initiated with an oblique motive due to previous complaints filed against the judge. The appellant also argued that the proceedings were barred by limitation. Arguments by the State: The State supported the High Court's judgment, asserting that the appellant's behavior was contemptuous and warranted the punishment imposed. The State emphasized the need to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. Supreme Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, agreeing that the appellant's conduct constituted criminal contempt. The Court rejected the appellant's defense that he was not present in the court on the specified dates and dismissed the relevance of the appellant's complaints against the judge. The Court noted that the appellant's refusal to apologize and his lack of remorse further justified the conviction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's conviction of the appellant for criminal contempt, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the dignity and respect of the judicial system. Issue 2: Whether the Appellant Can Be Allowed to Practice Law After Conviction for Criminal Contempt Court’s Jurisdiction vs. Bar Councils' Powers: The Supreme Court examined its powers under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the Constitution and the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court referred to the Supreme Court Bar Association case, which held that while the Court cannot take over the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Bar Council, it can prevent a contemnor advocate from appearing before it or other courts until he purges himself of contempt. Relevant Case Law: The Court cited various judgments, including Pravin C. Shah, Ex-Captain Harish Uppal, Bar Council of India vs. High Court of Kerala, and R.K. Anand, which supported the view that the Court has the authority to debar an advocate from appearing in court for contemptuous conduct. Section 24A of the Advocates Act: The Court discussed Section 24A, which disqualifies a person convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude from being enrolled as an advocate. The Court extended this disqualification to advocates already enrolled, emphasizing the need for higher integrity in the legal profession. Inaction of the Bar Councils: The Court noted the failure of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Bar Council of India to take action against the appellant despite the High Court's direction. The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Advocates Act to suspend the appellant's license for five years and debar him from appearing in any court in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's direction that the appellant shall not be permitted to appear in courts in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt. The Court also suspended the appellant's license for five years as a disciplinary measure for proved misconduct. Epilogue: The Supreme Court highlighted the urgent need to review the regulatory mechanism for the legal profession and requested the Law Commission of India to examine the relevant aspects in consultation with all concerned. The Court also directed the Government of India to consider taking appropriate steps based on the Law Commission's report within six months. Final Disposition: 1. Conviction of the appellant for criminal contempt is upheld. 2. Sentence of imprisonment is set aside due to the appellant's advanced age, but the fine and default sentence are upheld. 3. The appellant is debarred from appearing in courts in District Etah until he purges himself of contempt. 4. The appellant's license to practice law is suspended for five years.
|
