Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1393 OF 2008

R.K. ANAND        APPELLANT

VERSUS

REGISTRAR, DELHI HIGH COURT … RESPONDENT

O R D E R

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 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 the date of the judgment dated August 21, 2008  

leaving  him,  however,  free  to  carry  on  his  other  professional  work  e.g.  

1

Page 2

consultations, advices, conferences, 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 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. 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 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 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 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 to be  

1 (2009) 8 SCC 106

2

Page 3

kept away from the portals of the court for a longer time.  The  notice  would  therefore  require  him  to  show  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 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 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 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  the  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 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.   

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, were  

sitting in different combinations and this Bench could assemble specially for  

3

Page 4

this  matter  only  when  all  three  of  us  could  get  free  from  the  regular  

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.   

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, 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 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 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 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  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  form  whatsoever for  a period of  1 year from the date of  order on  

4

Page 5

which the apology is accepted by this Hon’ble 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  for  rendering legal aid to the poor and needy persons and for this  purpose his services can be utilized by the Delhi 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.”

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 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 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  

contemnor in the year 2007 and he has, thus, been facing the rigours of the  

proceeding for five years.   

5

Page 6

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 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 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 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.  

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 no means to  

have their cases effectively presented before the court. The contemnor shall  

6

Page 7

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  

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 of all the cases  

assigned to the contemnor and the result/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.  

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.   

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 muffassil place and attended mostly by children from  

the under-privileged and deprived sections of the society.  The money may  

7

Page 8

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.  

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.  

……..………………………J. (G.S. Singhvi)

……..………………………J. (Aftab Alam)

……..………………………J. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad)

New Delhi; November 21, 2012.  

8