B N SHIVANNA Vs. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC (Crl.) Nos. 7 and 12 of 2002 dated 18.8.2004 by which the Appellant has been convicted for committing criminal contempt of court and has been awarded the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

(2.) Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that the Appellant was enrolled as an advocate on 14.8.1998 and since then he has been practicing in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. Prior to joining the Bar, he had been working for the Respondent company as Marketing Executive. Being well known to the officials of the company, he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the Appellant used to report to the companys officials about the progress of its cases pending in various courts in Karnataka. However, on receiving some orders purported to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka, the officials of the company became suspicious and verified from the original record, and then submitted a complaint to the High Court that the Appellant had furnished to the company copies of fabricated and forged orders purported to have been passed by the Karnataka High Court. On the basis of the same, criminal contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court against the Appellant by registering a case CCC(Crl.) No. 12 of 2002, whereas CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002 was initiated at the instance of the Respondent company. The High Court took cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as Act 1971) against the Appellant. The court proceeded with the allegations that the Appellant had taken advantage of his position telling the said companys officials falsely that criminal cases have been launched in various courts in Karnataka against various purchasers and distributors of seeds under the Seeds Act for the alleged producing and selling of the spurious/sub-standard seeds by the agriculturists. The Appellant made the officials of the Respondent company believe that a large number of criminal cases had been filed against the company and its officials in various courts in Karnataka.

(3.) In this regard, it was alleged that the Appellant sent a policeman possessing summons/warrants, almost on regular basis, to the Head Office of the company and thereby made the higher officials of the company believe that a number of criminal cases had been filed against the company and its officials and that there was an urgent need to take immediate action in that regard. Subsequently, the Appellant told the company officials that he would arrange for avoidance of the warrants being executed against them, though there was imminent danger of officials being arrested, which he had so far successfully avoided.