R.K. ANANDversusREGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT

                       [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1090


A                            R.K. ANAND
                                   v.
                 REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1393 of 2008)
                        NOVEMBER 21, 2012
B
                [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.
                                                                 E
    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.
                                                                 F
     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.

    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 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.
D 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
E 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
F       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
G
        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
H       to be kept away from the portals of the court for a longer
  R.K. ANAND v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT 1093
                [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

    time. The notice would therefore require him to show            A
    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         B
    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
                                                                    c
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          D
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 thl;l 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          E
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.                       F

     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, werll sitting in different combinations
and this Bench co_uld assemble specially for this matter only
when all three of us could grt free from the regular                F
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.
                                                                    H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A       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,
B
        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
c       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
D       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
E       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
F       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 f,()rm whatsoever for a period of 1 year from the date
        of order on which the apology is accepted by this Hon'ble
G       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
H       for rendering legal aid to the poor and needy persons and
  R.K. ANAND v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT 1095
                [AFTAB ALAM, J.]

    for this purpose his services can be utilized by the Delhi          A
    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.·
                                                                        8
     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        C
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       D
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             E
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         F
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               G
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   H
     1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 10 S.C.R.


A 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.

B       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
C 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
D 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
E of all the cases assigned to the contemnor and the resulU
  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.
F          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.
G
       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
H muffassi/ place and attended mostly by children from the under-
  R.K. ANAND v. REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT 1097
                [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
privileged and deprived sections of the society. The money may   A
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.
                                                                 B
    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.
                                                                 c
K.K.T.                                  Appeal disposed of.