RAJIV DAWAR Vs. HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court aggrieved by the conviction and sentence under Sec. 2(c) read with Sec. 10 & 15 of Contempt of Courts Act and under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. Under the Contempt of Courts Act a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 was imposed and under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India the appellant was suspended from practice for a period of two months.

(2.) The main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the whole conviction is based on the unilateral version of the complainant before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi. Either before the Additional Sessions Judge at the time of reference to the High Court or at the stage of the proceedings in the High Court, the appellant was not given an opportunity to adduce evidence, or at least cross examine the de facto complainant. We find that the learned amicus before the High Court had also requested the High Court to comply with the procedural formalities giving full opportunity to the appellant to disabuse the allegations against him. In contempt proceedings, the contemnor has to be given an opportunity to establish his innocence. From the proceedings it is seen that the appellant was not granted such an opportunity except the opportunity of filing an affidavit. On the facts of this case, unless the allegations made by the de facto complainant who was an accused in a criminal case under the N.D.P.S. Act, had actually been established or proved in accordance with law, there could not have been a conviction based solely on the allegations. The situation ould have been different had at least at the time of reference by the Additional Sessions Judge, the appellant had been given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry and cross examine the complainant. On facts, we do not find that any such exercise had been undertaken even by the Additional Sessions Judge while making a reference to the High Court.

(3.) It is a case where the de facto complainant made an allegation that the appellant had charged exorbitant fees to the tune of Rs. 7.05 Lacs, without any active assistance to the accused and also withdrawn from the case and,therefore, he prayed for a direction to the Additional Sessions Judge for refund of at least Rs. 6 Lacs. However,it was the case of the appellant that for professional services rendered to the de facto complainant appropriate fees had been charged and it was not as if the amount received was for any other purpose as alleged by the complainant.