Punjab-Haryana High Court
Court On Its Own Motion vs Murari Lal, Vidhya Sagar Sons Of Dina ... on 20 November, 2014
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Raj Mohan Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 20.11.2014
CROCP No.22 of 2014
Court on its own motion ...Petitioner
Versus
Murari Lal & others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present : Mr. P.S.Bajwa, Advocate (Amicus Curaie), for the petitioner.
Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Respondent No.4 - Amit Sharma in person.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The present contempt proceedings were initiated on the basis of following note recorded by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina on 18.09.2014:
"Shri S.S.Rathore, Advocate, has handed over to me certain papers purporting to be an order passed by me on 11.03.2014 in Civil Revision No.1785 of 2014.
The said order is not passed by me. Such Revision Petition was never listed before me. In fact, Civil Revision No.1785 of 22014 titled as "Meena Kumari and others v. Meena Rani and others" was listed before another Bench on 10.03.2014. It appears that such order has been fraudulently prepared so as to seek stay of the execution of the demolition of the house. The preparation of such order and then producing the same before the Trial Court/Executing Court to obtain an order, interferes in the due administration of the justice and warrants initiation of criminal contempt proceedings.VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 2
Let the Criminal Contempt proceedings be initiated against the beneficiary(ies) of such order, to be identified by the Office, and the same be listed before an appropriate Bench as per Roster.
In the meantime, records of Civil Suit No.34 of 2000 and all proceedings consequent thereto be requisitioned from the Court concerned at Dasuya, through a Special Messenger."
On the basis of such note, Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice ordered initiation of suo motu proceedings against Murari Lal and Vidya Sagar sons of Dina Nath i.e. beneficiaries of the so-called order as well as Shri A.K.Kalia, counsel for the judgment-debtors before the Executing Court. The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice also ordered to conduct a fact finding enquiry regarding procurement of original order sheet of this Court, which has been used for preparation of fake order. It may be stated here that the fact finding enquiry has since been completed by the OSD (Vigilance), Punjab on 10.11.2014 recommending lodging of an FIR for the offences under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 read with 120-B of the IPC against (i) Amit Sharma, Advocate, (ii) Murari Lal son of Dina Nath, (iii) Vidya Sagar son of Dina Nath, and (iv) A.K.Kalia, Advocate.
In pursuance of the notices issued, reply by way of affidavit dated 04.10.2014 has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2. In the said reply, it is inter alia averred that against the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2000 in a suit for possession of land measuring 14 Marlas 7 Sarsahi situated in Village Badla, Tehsil Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, the deponents filed objections to the execution, which was dismissed by the Executing Court on 01.03.2014. After the objections were dismissed, the deponents talked to their co-brother namely Om Parkash regarding filing of the case in the High Court. Om Parkash informed them that Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, is the nephew of his friend, who is practicing in the Punjab & Haryana High Court since long. Thereafter, VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 3 after taking their case file from Shri Ashok Kumar Kalia, Advocate, respondent No.1 and his daughter Mrs. Saneh Lata, engaged Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate (respondent No.4), who assured them that he will file revision in the High Court and will get the stay order within one or two days. Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, charged Rs.69,000/- from the deponents out of which Rs.20,000/- was paid in cash, as an advance and the remaining amount was promised to be paid after some days. After some days, the deponents were informed by Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate that stay has been granted by the High Court on 11.03.2014. It was on 20.03.2014, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, sent information regarding the stay on his letter head dated 20.03.2014. The said letter attached with the reply as Annexure R-1/1 reads as under:
"Advocate 127/B, Sunny Enclave
Additional Standing Counsel, CHANDIGARH
Sector 125, GREATER MOHALI Tel.09915486127
e-mail: [email protected]
To
Sh. Murari Lal
S/o Sh. Dina Nath
R/o Village Badla, Tehsil Dasuya,
Distt. Hoshiarpur (Pb)
Subject: CIVIL REVISION No.1785 OF 2014 TITLED AS MURARI
LAL VS. SATISH CHANDER & ANOTHERS
Sir,
As per your instruction Civil Revision No.1785 of 2014 was filed in this Hon'ble High Court against the order dated 07.02.2006 and 01.03.2014 in which execution petition is still pending before Learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Dasuya. The above said civil revision was listed on 11.03.2014 before the Hon'ble Court and after hearing arguments for considerable time, the Hon'ble Court pleased to stay the proceedings going on before Learned Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dasuya before whom this execution application is pending and fixed the petition for arguments on 16.05.2014.
However, the copy of the order could not be procured as the Hon'ble Judge went on leave and resumed the work yesterday. Due to workload, the order-sheet is not signed after that. The undersigned requested the Court Secretary to get it signed, who in turn assured that it will be signed VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 4 within one or two days. Once it is signed it will issued in the normal course of time.
..............and apprise him about the factual/technical position of this civil revision so that he can request/pray before the Learned Lower Court on the next date of hearing in order to get any suitable date after 16.05.2014. In the meantime, stay orders will be placed on the record before the learned lower court.
This is for your information and necessary action please. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/- 20.03.2014 (AMIT SHARMA) Addl. Standing Counsel"
It is further averred that Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, requested for the remaining fee, which was deposited in his bank account in HDFC Bank.
Subsequently, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, sent the certified copy of the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina in C.R.No.1785 of 2014 titled as 'Murari Lal Vs. Satish Chander & another', which was received on 27.03.2014. Such certified copy of the order was presented by respondent No.1 and his daughter on 31.03.2014 before the Executing Court as a result of which proceedings were stayed by the Executing Court.
Thereafter, the deponents were called by Shri Ashok Kumar Kalia, Advocate, Hoshiarpur. They met Shri Ashok Kumar Kalia on 19.09.2014 and on his asking, they disclosed regarding sending of certified copy of the order dated 11.03.2014 by Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, who was engaged by them.
Shri Ashok Kumar Kalia, Advocate, also informed them that the District Judge, Hoshiarpur has called him regarding the authenticity of the stay order dated 11.03.2014. Thereafter, the deponents tried to contact Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, on his Mobile, but he did not respond. It is pointed out that the deponents are totally innocent and could not believe that their Advocate VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 5 namely Shri Amit Sharma could cheat them by sending a forged order. They further averred that it is only Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, who is responsible for the commission of offence for forging the order dated 11.03.2014.
On the basis of such affidavit, Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No.4. Since the affidavit dated 04.10.2014 so filed was not disclosing either the Mobile Number of Amit Sharma, Advocate or the Account Number in which amount was deposited, Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2 sought time to file additional affidavit. Thereafter, an additional affidavit dated 10.10.2014 has been filed by deponents - respondent Nos.1 & 2 disclosing the Bank Account No.08121000036447 of Shri Amit Sharma, Advocate, maintained with HDFC Bank as well as two short messages sent by Shri Amit Sharma on the mobile of their grand-daughter namely Retambhra Sharma. The said messages read as under:
"12.57 pm, 05/08/2014 Amit Chd: Kindly deposit Rs.9000/- immediately as in order to get lengthy date, we need to give some cash to reader in advance and some for filing court fee. All this is to be done 3 weeks in advance. Thanx."
"9.26 am, 06/08/2014 Amit Chd: AMIT SHARMA A/C NO.08121000036447 HDFC BANK"
It is also pointed out that the case file received from respondent No.4 reveals that he subsequently filed C.R.No.6570 of 2014 titled 'Murari Lal Vs. Satish Chander', which was dismissed on 25.09.2014. The brief also shows that '11.03.2014' has been written in the column of 'DATE', which clearly shows that respondent No.4 has done some act in relation to the case of the deponents on 11.03.2014. The photocopy of the brief has been attached as Annexure R-1/3. It is also pointed out that the grand-daughter of the deponents received an e-mail dated 20.03.2014 from respondent No.4 through his e-mail VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 6 i.d. i.e. [email protected] with two attachments of 786K and 543K size in JPG format.
On 16.10.2014, Respondent No.4 - Amit Sharma, Advocate, did not put in appearance, but his father Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma appeared and stated that his son Amit Sharma is out of station and would be back in the first week of November. At his request, the petition was adjourned to 04.11.2014. However, before the date fixed, a letter dated 11.10.2014 was received by one of us (Hemant Gupta, J.) on 28.10.2014 from respondent No.4. Such letter reads as under:
"To The Hon'ble Justice Hemant Gupta Court Room No.4 Punjab Haryana High Court, Sector - 1, Chandigarh 160001.
Subject: CROPC No.22 of 2014 TITLED AS COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION V/S MURARI LAL AND OTHERS"
Respected Sir, Today I have come to know from my colleagues that my name is being dragged in the above mentioned criminal contempt petition and MY LORDS have issued notice to me. The case is adjourned for 16.10.2014 for my appearance.
It is respectfully submitted that the allegations leveled against me are completely baseless and wrong. I have nothing to do with this issue. I am practicing in this Hon'ble High Court from last the 12 years and in this entire period, no one has raised even one finger on my work and conduct. Discipline and Honesty are two morals, which may father has taught being an officer of Indian Army. I will never do any illegal act.
I am shocked and feeling humiliated. I will file my reply and prove my innocence.
However, the only prayer I am making at this stage is, adjournment to any date beyond 3rd November, 2014, as I am in Bangalore for my and my wife's treatment since 6th October and I will come back to Chandigarh on 3rd November.
I fractured my right knee in April and underwent major knee operation in Sector 16, Hospital at Chandigarh, wherein plates were implanted in my knee and I remained bed ridden for almost 3 months, but due VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 7 to complication I was unable to walk properly so again I was operated in August for correction of ligament tier. I have come to Bangalore for advanced physiotherapy.
My wife is suffering from CANCER and she is taking treatment and follow-ups from SHRI SHANKARA CANCER HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER, Banglore from past 2 years. My in-laws are also settled here in Bangalore. Being advanced in medical research and having better facilities, we are taking treatemet from Bangalore.
I have already paid for my physiotherapy sessions and my wife's medical examination and follow up will complete on 30th October.
Sir, I have outmost respect for this Hon'ble Court, but I was not aware of this case otherwise I would have postponed by program.
It is therefore again respectfully prayed that MY LORD may accommodate me for One date and the above mentioned case be adjourned to any date after 3rd Novermber and I UNDERTAKE TO APPEAR ON THE NEXT DATE FIXED, as I will reach Chandigarh on 3rd November, 2014. Thanking you, Yours sincerely, Sd/-
(AMIT SHARMA) Advocate"
On 10.11.2014, Respondent No.4 - Amit Sharma filed his reply by way of affidavit admitting the fact of sending of forged order to respondent Nos.1 & 2. The relevant extracts from the reply read as under:
"2. That Smt. Sneh Lata daughter of Shri Murari Lal and her brother Shri Virender Mehta, who were also distant relatives, visited the house of the deponent in last week of February 2014, with a case in hand where their 27 years old house was about to demolished as per the orders of the Learned Lower Court Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. They were desperate and crying for stay. Deponent from the conversation sensed that they have already consulted with few other Lawyers and probably they have refused to take the case because of limitation period or may be for some other reasons. The case was time barred by more than 10 years. Deponent told them that the only chance is on humanitarian ground and that too if the Hon'ble Court is convinced. They gave the case to deponent and asked to get the stay on any grounds.
xx xx
4. That being relatives deponent took the case file which has almost all documents in Punjabi. The deponent gave few documents for translation and VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 8 consulted the case with few colleagues who out rightly rejected the case being hopelessly time barred. Deponent informed telephonically to Smt. Sneh Lata that it is hard to get stay even on humanitarian ground, so please take back your case file. On hearing this, Smt. Sneh Lata cried over the phone and asked him help in any possible manner as soon as possible as they are running out of time because learned Court will order Police party to accompany the demolition team for demolition of house. She again repeated that they need stay for 2-3 months and once out of court settlement is done, the opposite party will withdraw his case from Learned Lower Court and they will withdraw it from this Hon'ble Court.
xx xx
7. That this was the time when deponent decided to help without thinking of future consequences. The only though was to give something a shape of letter which will give a hint that they have filed a civil revision in this Hon'ble Court and they have got stay, but order was not signed, so that they can get an adjournment for month or so. But the idea didn't work out and the learned Judge only adjourned the case for one week.
8. That when they couldn't procure the desired date Smt. Sneh Lata visited the house of the deponent and again requested to help in any possible manner and cried inconsolably. When deponent showed his helplessness and said he cannot help them beyond this, at this stage Smt. Sneh Lata asked whether something can be prepared which looks like an order and gave logic that they will show Xerox copy of the order to the opposition counsel and manage a longer date on joint request and they will get opposite party to compromise before the next date of hearing and this way no one will come to know about the authenticity of the order. This way she can save her house. Time and again it was coming to mind that they need this stay for 2-3 months and after that opposite party will withdraw the suit before the learned lower court.
9. That deponent is respectfully submitting that he never intended to harm anyone by preparing the order in question and remained under constant belief that within 2-3 months they will settle their issue outside court resultantly opposite party will get his money and house of Sh. Murari Lal will be saved. But on the contrary they produced the order in question before the learned Lower Court and further did not inform deponent, of doing so. If it had been in knowledge of the deponent that they have produced the order before the Court then deponent would not have filed the actual civil revision (CR No.6570/2014) in September, 2014.
xx xx
11. ......Deponent has never committed such mistake in 12 years of practice. The only mistake which happened due to emotions and to help VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 relatives and in doing so made the order in question. Deponent is whole I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 9 heartedly regretting his act and assures this Hon'ble Court that such act will not be repeated against in future.
xx xx
14. That the fee was the last earning of the deponent since April 2014. Father of the deponent under compelling circumstance had to sell ancestral land at Hoshiarpur, in order to run the household. After this petition came into light deponent is feeling very remorseful and regretting his acts. Deponent is begging with folded hands from this Hon'ble Court, to give one opportunity to rectify his mistake.
xx xx
16. That deponent is only 35 years old, seeking mercy of this Hon'ble Court and tendering unconditional and unqualified apology and undertakes that in future he shall maintain the ethics of life and shall not do anything which may amount to any disrespect to the Court or cause obstruction in the administration of justice. Deponent undertakes not to repeat such mistake in his life again.
When the matter came up for final hearing before this Court on 12.11.2014, Mr. Raman Sharma points out that respondent No.4 has the history of previous misconduct inasmuch as he withdrew certain amount from the Bank account of Mr. Arun Walia, Senior Advocate, when he was working with him. Mr. Arun Walia was called for verification of the allegation. Mr. Walia in the presence of Respondent No.4 pointed out that a blank cheque from his cheque book was interpolated to withdraw a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- from his Bank account about three years back. He also stated that the said amount has since been returned to him.
With this factual back-ground, we are called upon to decide the present petition with heavy heart. Though Respondent No.4 initially emphatically submitted that the allegations leveled against him are completely baseless and wrong, as discipline and honesty are two morals, which his father has taught him being an officer of Indian Army, but subsequently, he has taken somersault and admitting the act of misconduct of causing to produce forged order in Court.VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 10
The averments in the affidavit now filed when read alongwith affidavit of respondent Nos.1 & 2 shows that respondent No.4 is not truthful.
Firstly, the order sought to be impugned by the judgment debtors was passed on 01.03.2014. It is not an order, which was passed in remote past, as is being averred by Respondent No.4 in his affidavit. Secondly, the submission that the judgment debtors are his close relations is again not made out. As per respondent Nos.1 & 2, Om Parkash introduced them to Respondent No.4, as a nephew of his friend. Therefore, the judgment debtors and Respondent No.4 are not proved to be related by blood. Thirdly, the assertion that he earlier wrote a letter, which facilitated adjournment for a week, is again not a correct assertion.
A perusal of the record shows that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 contacted him, after an order dated 01.03.2014 was passed. The record further shows that in fact Respondent No.4 filed a revision petition bearing C.R.No.6570 of 2014 titled 'Murari Lal Vs. Satish Chander' challenging orders dated 22.09.2012; 20.12.2012 and 01.03.2014 passed by the Executing Court on an application by the decree-holder for seeking police help for execution of the warrants of possession. The said revision petition was dismissed on 25.09.2014 i.e. after the note was sent by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina on 18.09.2014 and Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice ordered to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.
The additional affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 reveals that the information regarding 'stay' was sent through e-mail. Later, respondent No.4 has asked respondent Nos.1 & 2 to deposit Rs.9000/- for payment to the Reader in order to get lengthy date and for filing Court fee through short messages. All such representations made by Respondent No.4 are acts of mis-representation and acts of professional misconduct. Though VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 11 respondent No.4 at one stage was empathetically denying the allegations asserting him of possessing high moral values, but in the reply by way of affidavit dated 10.11.2014, he admitted his entire guilt. The initial denial was probably raised without realizing that Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have enough documentary evidence to support their assertions that the act of sending a forged order was only a creation of Respondent No.4. Since Respondent No.4 had admitted his act of preparation of order purported to be an order of this Court and communication thereof to respondent Nos.1 & 2, the only defence is of apology.
In O.P.Sharma & others Vs. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained the duties of an Advocate. It was said that Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society and that an advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. He should be dignified in his dealings to the court, to his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. The Court observed as under:
"38. An advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. Advocates have a large responsibility towards the society. A client's relationship with his/her advocate is underlined by utmost trust. An advocate is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent and should conform to the requirements of the law by which an advocate plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. An advocate is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law and ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. Any violation of the principles of professional ethics by an advocate is unfortunate and unacceptable. Ignoring even a minor violation/misconduct militates against the fundamental foundation of the public justice system.VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 12
39. An advocate should be dignified in his dealings to the court, to his fellow lawyers and to the litigants. He should have integrity in abundance and should never do anything that erodes his credibility. An advocate has a duty to enlighten and encourage the juniors in the profession. An ideal advocate should believe that the legal profession has an element of service also and associates with legal service activities. Most importantly, he should faithfully abide by the standards of professional conduct and etiquette prescribed by the Bar Council of India in Chapter II, Part VI of the Bar Council of India Rules.
40. As a rule, an advocate being a member of the legal profession has a social duty to show the people a beacon of light by his conduct and actions rather than being adamant on an unwarranted and uncalled for issue.
41. We hope and trust that the entire legal fraternity would set an example for other professionals by adhering to all the abovementioned principles."
As per Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act'), 'contempt of court' means civil contempt or criminal contempt. The 'criminal contempt' as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act means publication whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. In terms of exception to Section 12 of the Act, an apology shall not be rejected merely on a ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide. In terms of Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961, this Court has framed Rules, which are published in Volume V, Chapter VI-B. The relevant Rule 14 reads as under:
"14. No advocate who has been found guilty of contempt of court shall be permitted to appear, act or plead in any court unless he has purged himself of contempt."
A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad & others Vs. Mirza Yaseen Ali Baig VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 13 & others 1996 Crl. L. J. 3024 while examining the identical situation of presentation of a fake order produced before the Court and the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as well as the plea of double jeopardy of proceedings for prosecution for an offence of forgery, held to the following effect:
"9. The action for contempt under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, however, is not equated with a criminal proceeding. This aspect of the law has been considered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association, and it has been pointed out with reference to the various authorities by one of us (P. S. Mishra, J as I then was), particularly the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Teja Singh, AIR 1954 SC 186 : (1954 Cri LJ 460) that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply in matters of contempt triable by the High Court. The High Court can deal with it summarily and adopt its own procedure. All that is necessary is that the procedure is fair and that the contemner is made aware of the charge against him and given a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself. ......
xxx xxx
10. It has been pointed out in the said judgment that contempt proceedings are described as quasi criminal proceedings only in the sense that contemner should be afforded a fair opportunity of being heard, otherwise they are proceedings of a summary nature. The contemners are not accused in the ordinary sense of an offence as contemplated under the penal laws of the land although in some parts and by way of description contemners are some times called 'accused'.
xxx xxx
12. For the reasons that we have stated above, we have no hesitation in holding that respondents 1 and 2 are guilty of committing the forgery or an order of this court and thus guilty of committing criminal contempt. Their conduct and action in forging an order of the court and producing the same before the Municipal authorities are evidently intended to scandalise the authority of the court and cause obstructions in the administration of justice by the court. Respondents for the said reason are found guilty and accordingly convicted for contempt of court.
13. We are conscious that the courts resort to contempt proceedings sparingly and only when it is necessary for keeping the administration of justice clean and clear. We cannot, however, ignore the fact that respondents have resorted to fabrication and forgery of an order and used the same as the VIMAL KUMAR order passed by the one of the Honourable Judges of this court in a 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 14 proceeding pending in the court. They have done a thing which, if left unpunished, shall shake the confidence of the people in the administration of justice. We cannot for the said reason allow any sympathy or compassion to overtake the need to punish such persons severely. We would have chosen to award the maximum punishment to the respondent, but have decided to impose imprisonment for a period of four months to the respondents in the hope that others will learn the lesson from the fate of the respondents, who have resorted to forgery and have chosen the court as the victim. It is ordered accordingly. Respondents shall be taken in custody forthwith and remanded to undergo the imprisonment as ordered above."
In M. Veerabhadra Rao Vs. Tek Chand 1984 (Supp.) SCC 571, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was seized of an act of forgery by the Member of the Bar in attesting a forged affidavit for the purpose of Income Tax Clearance certificate arising out of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Member of the Bar in terms of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court observed as under:
"20. What conclusion can be deduced from the totality of aforementioned evidence? And this has to be ascertained in the context of the affirmative stand taken by the appellant. The appellant admits that he knew the respondent long before the attestation on Ex. A-1. Therefore, one can easily rule out impersonation or the appellant being taken by someone for a joy-ride. If the appellant knew the respondent intimately before the date of Ex. A-1 and if the incontrovertible conclusion is that the respondent did not appear before the appellant either on October 31, 1972 or on November 1, 1972 nor did he present any affidavit for the attestation by the appellant nor did he admit his signature, the stark albeit unpalatable conclusion that flows therefrom is that the appellant is a party to a document which is not genuine. It can be safely said that it was a false document purporting to be in the name of the respondent. It would in law become a forged document. The appellant by attesting his signature to it gave a solemnity which is being relied upon by the Income Tax Officer on which a very valuable document namely, income-tax clearance certificate was issued which facilitated registration of a sale deed in respect of which the contention is that the consideration has not been paid to the respondent. The appellant thus facilitated commission of a fraud by becoming a party to the forged document. In reaching this conclusion we have completely kept out of consideration the opinion of the handwriting expert which was not placed on record in the enquiry proceedings but which VIMAL KUMAR was submitted to the criminal court in criminal proceedings.2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 15
21. The appellant is thus shown to have violated his statutory duty conferred by the Oaths Act, 1969. He has also acted in a manner unbecoming of a member of a noble profession. He has knowingly become a party to the forgery of a very valuable document and he has by his conduct facilitated the commission of a fraud which would to some extent benefit his senior M. Ram Mohan Rao."
In R.K.Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, one of the question, which was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether it is open to the High Court to prohibit a Member of the Bar from appearing before the High Court or the Courts subordinate to it for a specific period as one of the punishments for criminal contempt of court. The Court examined the provisions of Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 laying down the condition subject to which an Advocate would be permitted to practice in the High Court and the courts subordinate to it. The Supreme Court was considering a situation where the High Court has not framed Rules under Section 34 of the Advocates Act and whether still, the High Court can prohibit to appear an Advocate in Court observed as under:
"225. But approaching the matter from a different angle Mr. Subramanium submitted, it is, however, open to the High Court to make rules regulating the appearance of advocates in courts. He further submitted that although the Delhi High Court has not framed any specific rules regulating the appearance of advocates, it is settled law that power vested in an authority would not cease to exist merely because rules prescribing the manner of exercise of power have not been framed.
226. The contention that the direction debarring a lawyer from appearing before it or in courts subordinate to it is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court is based on the premise that the bar is akin to revocation/suspension of the lawyer's licence which is a punishment for professional misconduct that can only be inflicted by the Bar Council after following the procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act. The contention finds support from the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409.
xxx xxx VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 16
238. In Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, the direction prohibiting an advocate from appearing in court for a specified period was viewed as a total and complete denial of his right to practise law and the bar was considered as a punishment inflicted on him. In Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45, it was seen not as punishment for professional misconduct but as a measure necessary to regulate the court's proceedings and to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts. We may respectfully add that in a given case a direction disallowing an advocate who is convicted of criminal contempt from appearing in court may not only be a measure to maintain the dignity and orderly functioning of the courts but may become necessary for the self- protection of the court and for preservation of the purity of court proceedings. Let us, for example, take the case where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an advocate is found tampering with the court's record; or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an "inconvenient" court; or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts. Unfortunately these examples are not from imagination. These things are happening more frequently than we care to acknowledge.
239. We may also add that these illustrations are not exhaustive but there may be other ways in which a malefactor's conduct and actions may pose a real and imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings, cardinal to any court's functioning, apart from constituting a substantive offence and contempt of court and professional misconduct. In such a situation the court does not only have the right but it also has the obligation cast upon it to protect itself and save the purity of its proceedings from being polluted in any way and to that end bar the malefactor from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time."
In the said case, the instances where a direction disallowing an Advocate, who is convicted for a criminal contempt for appearing in any Court as a measure to maintain dignity and orderly functioning of the courts includes where an Advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders was considered and approved. In the affidavit filed in defence leaves no manner of doubt that the act of preparing a forged order; remitting the same to the VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 17 judgment debtors for producing before the Executing Court is an intentional and willful act committed by Respondent No.4. Therefore, we find that this Court has the power and in fact responsibility to maintain dignity of the Court and functioning of the Court by making such order as may be warranted in the facts of the present case.
In Pravin C. Shah Vs. K.A. Mohd. Ali & another, (2001) 8 SCC 650, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined as to when a contempt can be purged and as to whether, undergoing the penalty would amount to purging of Contempt. The Court observed as under:
"24. Purging is a process by which an undesirable element is expelled either from one's own self or from a society. It is a cleaning process. Purge is a word which acquired implications first in theological connotations. In the case of a sin, purging of such sin is made through the expression of sincere remorse coupled with doing the penance required. In the case of a guilt, purging means to get himself cleared of the guilt. The concept of purgatory was evolved from the word "purge", which is a state of suffering after this life in which those souls, who depart this life with their deadly sins, are purified and rendered fit to enter into heaven where nothing defiled enters (vide Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn., Vol. 35-A, p. 307). In Black's Law Dictionary the word "purge" is given the following meaning: "To cleanse; to clear. To clear or exonerate from some charge or imputation of guilt, or from a contempt." It is preposterous to suggest that if the convicted person undergoes punishment or if he tenders the fine amount imposed on him the purge would be completed.
25. We are told that a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court has expressed a view that purging process would be completed when the contemnor undergoes the penalty [vide Madan Gopal Gupta (Dr) v. Agra University AIR 1974 All 39]. This is what the learned Single Judge said about it: (AIR p. 43, para 13) "In my opinion a party in contempt purged its contempt by obeying the orders of the court or by undergoing the penalty imposed by the court."
26. Obeying the orders of the court would be a mode by which one can make the purging process in a substantial manner when it is a civil contempt. Even for such a civil contempt the purging process would not be treated as completed merely by the contemnor undergoing the penalty imposed on him VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 unless he has obeyed the order of the court or he has undone the wrong. If I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 18 that is the position in regard to civil contempt the position regarding criminal contempt must be stronger. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act categorises contempt of court into two categories. The first category is "civil contempt" which is the wilful disobedience of the order of the court including breach of an undertaking given to the court. But "criminal contempt" includes doing any act whatsoever, which tends to scandalise or lowers the authority of any court, or tends to interfere with the due course of a judicial proceeding or interferes with, or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner.
27. We cannot therefore approve the view that merely undergoing the penalty imposed on a contemnor is sufficient to complete the process of purging himself of the contempt, particularly in a case where the contemnor is convicted of criminal contempt. The danger in giving accord to the said view of the learned Single Judge in the aforecited decision is that if a contemnor is sentenced to a fine he can immediately pay it and continue to commit contempt in the same court, and then again pay the fine and persist with his contemptuous conduct. There must be something more to be done to get oneself purged of the contempt when it is a case of criminal contempt.
28. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India highlighted the absence of any mode of purging oneself of the guilt in any of the Rules as a reason for not following the interdict contained in Rule 11. Merely because the Rules did not prescribe the mode of purging oneself of the guilt it does not mean that one cannot purge the guilt at all. The first thing to be done in that direction when a contemnor is found guilty of a criminal contempt is to implant or infuse in his own mind real remorse about his conduct which the court found to have amounted to contempt of court. Next step is to seek pardon from the court concerned for what he did on the ground that he really and genuinely repented and that he has resolved not to commit any such act in future. It is not enough that he tenders an apology. The apology tendered should impress the court to be genuine and sincere. If the court, on being impressed of his genuineness, accepts the apology then it could be said that the contemnor has purged himself of the guilt."
Though in civil cases, compliance of the order amounts to purging of the proceedings, whereas in a criminal contempt, more so of producing a forged order to facilitate the deferment of the execution proceedings cannot be purged.
VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 19
The question, which now arises, is whether the apology tendered by respondent No.4 is bona fide. We are constraint to say that it is not bona fide. Firstly, the apology has not come at the first instance as the initial stand of Respondent No.4 in his communication dated 11.10.2014 was one of emphatic denial. Secondly, the act of Respondent No.4 is contrary to the expectations of a Member of noble profession, which expects an Advocate to be diligent and conform to the requirements of the law where he plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. Respondent No.4 has not worked with integrity, as the actions have eroded his credibility and that of profession. Thirdly, the short messages sent by him to the judgment debtors are that of misrepresentation and professional misconduct. The contumacious conduct of Respondent No.4 at all stages of proceedings compels us to reject his apology. The act of preparing forged order without filing a revision petition is not an act in respect of which apology can be tendered or accepted. It is the highest kind of misconduct, which a Member of the Bar can indulge.
In view of the above discussion, while discharging rule against respondent Nos.1 to 3, we hold respondent No.4 alone as a guilty of criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Since the act committed by respondent No.4 is the gravest misconduct, which can be conducted by any Member of the legal profession, we order:
1. To sentence Respondent No.4 - Amit Sharma to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- as fine;
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as cost of the proceedings to be deposited with Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association within three months;VIMAL KUMAR 2014.11.20 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CROCP No.22 of 2014 20
3. Respondent No.4 - Amit Sharma is not permitted to appear, act or plead in any Court including High Court or courts subordinate to it for a period of two years; &
4. To direct the Bar Council for the States of Punjab and Haryana to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.4 for the professional misconduct in preparing and causing to use such fake and forged order in Judicial Proceedings;
However, the operation of the order regarding sentence of imprisonment is suspended for a period of three months to enable respondent No.4 to avail the remedy of appeal.
Disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
20.11.2014 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Vimal JUDGE
VIMAL KUMAR
2014.11.20 15:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh