IN RE AN ADVOCATE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present reference arises out of the complaint of Edward Joseph Ellis, who is the accused in Sessions Case No. 17/2004 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 pending before the Sessions Court. Edward Joseph Ellis (accused) was produced before the Court of Sh. Lal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, on 22/07/2004 On the said date the accused personally handed over to the Additional Sessions Judge, in Court, an eight page hand written complaint, raising allegations against Mr. Rajiv Dawar, Advocate, respondent herein, that in December 2003, Mr. Dawar assured the accused his release on bail for a sum of Rs.30 lacs as he had now spoken to the people who would be directly responsible for his release on bail.

(2.) AS per the complaint, the respondent had approached the accused several times whilst being taken away from Patiala House Courts in June 2003 and had held out himself to be an advocate of repute who had got bail for several similarly placed people who were arrested for serious charges. Respondent allegedly offered his services for assured release on bail within 6 months. The complainant says that being desperate to be released, he took the bait offered by the respondent and engaged the respondent for his defence. Further, it is alleged that respondent had received Rs.6 lacs from Ms. C Gibbard, the relative of the accused, as part payment towards arranging bail for the accused and thereafter, to avoid fulfilment of the said promise, obtained from the accused, an undated statement for acknowledging payment of Rupees three lacs for court appearances, on the pretext of completing formalities with regard to an enquiry from British High Commission. After giving the undated statement, the accused says that he realized the probable consequences thereof and demanded the statement back from the respondent, who refused to return it. Accused claims to have then realized, that respondent was not really working in his best interests and was rather carrying out a very calculated fraud in order to gain monetarily. Accused stopped release of any further payment towards the respondent thereafter.

(3.) THE material allegations in the aforesaid complaint which are relevant for the purposes of the present proceedings have been highlighted. It would be seen that as per the complaint, the respondent/contemnor had represented to the accused that 'he had spoken to the people who would be directly responsible for releasing him on bail and the total cost would now be 30 lac rupees and the terms would be that he would have to be paid 15 lac rupees as advance and the balance just before my release and that the whole process would take between 8 to 10 weeks from the time he received the first 15 lac rupees.' As per the allegations in the complaint, clear and unequivocal meaning of the person responsible for release on bail can be none other than Judicial Officer who has the statutory duty to decide applications for bail.