REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2008
R.K. ANAND APPELLANT
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
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 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 the date of the judgment dated August 21, 2008 leaving
him, however, free to carry on his other professional work e.g.
consultations, advices, conferences, 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 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 matter to this Court in appeal under
Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act. This Court by judgment and
order dated July 29, 2009 (R.K. Anand v. Registrar, Delhi High)[1] affirmed
the finding of the High Court as to the guilt of the contemnor. But so far
as the punishment is concerned, this Court took the view that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the punishment given to the contemnor was
wholly inadequate. In paragraphs 272 and 273 of the judgment, this Court
held and observed as follows:-
“272. The action of the appellant in trying to suborn the court
witness in a criminal trial was reprehensible enough but his conduct
before the High Court aggravates the matter manifold. He does not
show any remorse for his gross misdemeanour and instead tries to take
on the High Court by defying its authority. We are in agreement with
Mr. Salve and Mr. Subramanium that punishment given to him by the High
Court was wholly inadequate and incommensurate to the seriousness of
his actions and conduct. We, accordingly, propose to issue a notice
to him for enhancement of punishment.
273. We also hold that by his actions and conduct the appellant has
established himself as a person who needs to be kept away from the
portals of the court for a longer time. The notice would therefore
require him to show cause why the punishment awarded to him should not
be enhanced as provided under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act. He would additionally show cause why he should not be debarred
from appearing in courts for a longer period. The second part of the
notice would also cure the defect in the High Court order in debarring
the appellant from appearing in courts without giving any specific
notice in that regard as held in the earlier part of the judgment.”
3. Accordingly, this Court directed for issuing a notice of enhancement
of punishment to him and directing him to file a show cause within eight
weeks from the date of service of the notice.
4. In response to the notice issued by the Court, the contemnor filed
his show cause on January 13, 2010. In the show cause he tendered apology
to the Court and made the prayer to drop the proceedings. There were,
however, certain statements made in the show cause that showed a lack of
remorse for the wrong done by him. When it was pointed out to the learned
counsel representing the contemnor, he filed an additional affidavit on May
4, 2011 accepting all the observations and findings recorded in the
judgment of this Court and seeking to withdraw all statements made in the
Court that suggested any lack of contrition on his part.
5. Here, it may be stated that the hearing of the case took place for
brief periods after long gaps because we, the three members on this Bench,
were sitting in different combinations and this Bench could assemble
specially for this matter only when all three of us could get free from the
regular combinations. As a result, the hearing was protracted till
September 24, 2012 when the contemnor filed yet another additional
affidavit proposing to undertake certain steps in atonement of his guilt.
6. Paragraph 2 of the affidavit which enumerates the steps which the
contemnor wishes to undertake is reproduced below:-
“2. That this matter has been pending for quite some time and
it has allowed the Deponent to introspect and in addition to the
unconditional apologies dated January, 2010 and 04.05.2011 already
tendered by the Deponent before this Hon’ble Court, the Deponent
voluntarily submits before this Hon’ble Court as under:-
A. That the Deponent has decided to donate a sum of Rs.21
Lakhs (Rupees Twenty Lakhs (sic.) Only) through cheque favouring Bar
Council of India for establishment of Computer Centre/ Library in any
Law College / Institution/University which the Bar Council of India
may deem fit. Photostat copy of the Cheque No.010592 dated 20.09.2012
drawn on UCO Bank, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi in the sum of Rs.21
Lakhs (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Only) favouring Bar Council of India
along with a copy of covering letter dated 20.09.2012 addressed to the
Secretary, Bar Council of India is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-A
(Colly). The Deponent undertakes to send the cheque along with the
covering letter to Bar Council of India immediately on passing of the
final order by this Hon’ble Court in the present case on 24.09.2012.
B. That the Deponent also undertakes before this Hon’ble
Court that the Deponent shall not make any earning out of the legal
profession by way of Practice/Conference/ Consultation/ Legal Opinion/
Arbitration etc. in any form whatsoever for a period of 1 year from
the date of order on which the apology is accepted by this Hon’ble
Court and during this period his services rendered as a Lawyer/
appearances, if any will all be pro bono.
C. That the Deponent also undertakes to offer his services as
a lawyer for a period of 1 year as aforesaid for rendering legal aid
to the poor and needy persons and for this purpose his services can be
utilized by the Delhi Legal Services Authority, Patiala House Courts/
Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority, High Court of Delhi, New
Delhi/ Supreme Court Legal Services Authority, Supreme Court, New
Delhi.”
7. The offence committed by the contemnor was indeed odious. In the
judgment, the gravity of the offence committed by him is discussed in
detail and it is pointed out that the contemnor’s action tended to strike
at the roots of the administration of criminal justice. We reaffirm the
observations and findings made in the earlier judgment. Further, we have
not the slightest doubt that normally the punishment for the criminal
contempt of the nature committed by the contemnor should be a term of
imprisonment.
8. In a judicial proceeding, however, it is important not to lose
complete objectivity and that compels us to take note of certain features
of this case. The contemnor is 69 years old. His wife has suffered a
stroke of multiple sclerosis in the year 1992 and she is confined to the
bed and a wheel chair for over 20 years. The contempt proceeding was
initiated against the contemnor in the year 2007 and he has, thus, been
facing the rigours of the proceeding for five years.
9. In the meanwhile, the criminal trial from which the present
proceeding arises was concluded by the trial court and the accused was
found guilty under Section 304 Part II of the Penal Code. In appeal, the
High Court converted his conviction to one under Section 304-A of the Penal
Code. But, on further appeal by the State to this Court, the conviction of
the accused was, once again, brought under Section 304 Part II of the Penal
Code by judgment and order dated August 3, 2012. In other words, the
criminal trial from which the present proceedings arise has also attained
finality.
10. The aforesaid facts and circumstances persuade us to take a slightly
lenient view of the matter. We feel that no useful purpose will be served
by sending the contemnor to jail. On the contrary, by keeping him out and
making him do the things that he has undertaken to do would serve a useful
social purpose. We, accordingly, accept the offer made by the contemnor.
11. In terms of his undertaking, the contemnor shall not do any kind of
professional work charging any fees or for any personal considerations for
one year from today. He shall exclusively devote his professional services
to help pro bono the accused who, on account of lack of resources, are not
in a position to engage any lawyer to defend themselves and have no means
to have their cases effectively presented before the court. The contemnor
shall place his professional services at the disposal of the Delhi Legal
Services Authority which, in coordination with the Delhi High Court Legal
Services Authority, will frame a scheme to avail of the contemnor’s
services for doing case of undefended accused either at the trial or at the
appellate stage. The contemnor shall appear in court only in cases assigned
to him by the Legal Services Authority.
12. The Delhi Legal Services Authority shall keep a record of all the
cases assigned to the contemnor and the result/progress made in those
cases. At the end of the year, the Delhi Legal Services Authority shall
submit a report to this Court in regard to all the cases done by the
contemnor at its instance which shall be placed before the Judges for
perusal.
13. At the end of one year it will be open to the contemnor to resume his
private law practice. But he shall not leave any case assigned to him by
the Legal Services Authority incomplete. He shall continue to do those
cases, free of cost, till they come to a close.
14. The contemnor shall pay a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty One
Lakhs) through a demand draft to the Bar Council of India within one week
from today. The Bar Council shall give the money to a law college
preferably situated at a muffassil place and attended mostly by children
from the under-privileged and deprived sections of the society. The money
may be used for developing the infrastructure of the college, such as class
rooms, library, computer facilities or moot court facilities, etc. The Bar
Council of India will ensure a proper utilisation of the money.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the proceedings of
this case are closed.
16. The criminal miscellaneous petition No.21373 of 2012 also stands
disposed of.
…….. ………………………J.
(G.S. Singhvi)
…….. ………………………J.
(Aftab Alam)
…….. ………………………J.
(Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)
New Delhi;
November 21, 2012.
-----------------------
[1] (2009) 8 SCC 106
