Court on its Motion vs R.S.Mittal

G.S. Singhvi, J.

Before dealing with the issue which arises for consideration in this case, we may notice the facts leading to the suo motu initiation of the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against Shri R.S. Mittal, a Senior Advocate of this Court and the developments which have taken place thereafter.

A perusal of the record shows that Regular Second Appeal No. 1414 of 1998 Rameshwar and others v. Prithvi Raj and others listed for motion hearing on 28.5.1998 before V.K. Jhanji, J. in which Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate had appeared on behalf of the appellants was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellants to file appropriate proceedings before the Financial Commissioner (Revenue). After one month and 10 days, Rameshwar son of Arjan, resident of village Ganga, District Sirsa, who was one of the appellants, appeared before V.K. Jhanji, J. along with Shri A.S. Brar, Advocate and made some complaint against Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate. On being directed by V.K. Jhanji, J., Shri K.K. Garg, Registrar of this Court recorded the statements of said Rameshwar and Shri A.S. Brar on 7.8.1998. The same are reproduced below.

"Statement of Rameshwar son of Sh. Arjan son of Sh. Ram Chand, aged 35 years, r/o Village Ganga, Distt. Sirsa on S.A.

I engaged Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, in case titled as Rameshwar v. Prithvi Raj etc. He demanded Rs. 11,000/ as his fee from me. I paid Rs. 11,000/ to Sh. Mittal in this case. The Clerk of Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, also charged Rs. 1,000/ in addition to Rs. 11,000/ from me for preparing the papers. The above said amount was paid by me in the last week of May, 1998. Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate filed the appeal in the High Court and the same was enlisted in the Court of the Hon''ble Mr. Justice V.K. Jhanji. After about two days, i.e. on 29th or 30th May, 1998. I again came and met Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate. He told me to pay Rs. 40,000/ more for payment to the Judge. I paid Rs. 40,000/ to Mr. Mittal. My appeal was dismissed and Sh. Mittal told me that I am an unfortunate person. Then I went to the house of Sh. Mittal in the evening. He demanded Rs. 11,000/ more from me for getting the decision altered and told me that no other lawyer can get this work done from the Judge and he will go to the house of the Judge and get my case decided in my favour. I paid Rs. 11,000/ more to Sh. Mittal, but the case was not decided in my favour. Then I asked Sh. Mittal to return the amount to me, but he said that amount cannot be returned as a doctor does not return the fee even if the patient dies. Ram Kumar is my maternal uncle. He was with me when I paid Rs. 40,000/ to Sh. Mittal. Ram Kumar, my maternal uncle and one Harnek Singh, maternal uncle of Sh. A.S. Brar, Advocate treat themselves as brothers."

"Statement of Sh. A.S. Brar, Advocate.

I identify Rameshwar s/o Sh. Arjan s/o Sh. Ram Chand, resident of Village Ganga, Distt. Sirsa and endorse what the has said in his statement made by him today."

2A. On the basis of these statements V.K. Jhanji, J. passed order dated 11.8.1998 and directed that the matter be placed before Hon''ble the Chief Justice for initiation of appropriate proceedings against Shri R.S. Mittal. Some of the observations made in that order are extracted below :

"In his statement, Rameshwar has specifically levelled allegation against Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, in accepting Rs. 51,000/ in the name of the Judge, and this prima facie makes Sh. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, liable for being proceeded against under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and under the Contempt of Courts Act for scandalising and lowering the authority of the Court. This action on his part also amounts to interference with due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice."

After considering the observations made by V.K. Jhanji, J., Hon''ble the Chief Justice passed an order on 13.8.1998 that contempt case be registered and listed as per roster.

K.K. Srivastava, J. before whom the case was listed on 17.8.1998, observed that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 6(2) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Rules relating to Contempt of Court, the case is liable to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges. He, therefore, directed that the case be listed before a larger Bench after obtaining necessary order from Hon''ble the Chief Justice. Thereafter, the case was listed on 18.8.1998 before the Division Bench consisting of V.K. Bali and B. Rai, JJ., who observed that a prima facie case was made out against Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate and, therefore, a notice be issued to him to show cause as to why the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him. On the next date of hearing, i.e. 30.9.1998, reply to the notice was filed on behalf of Shri R.S. Mittal and the case was adjourned to 28.10.1998. While doing that, the Bench requested the learned Advocate General, Punjab to assist the Court. On 28.10.1998, the case was adjourned to 29.10.1998. On the next date, i.e. 29.10.1998, the Bench passed a detailed order, the relevant portion of which is extracted below :

"After hearing the learned counsel representing the parties, we are of the view that statement of Rameshwar as also of Mr. A.S. Brar, Advocate who identified him should be recorded. It may be mentioned here that the counsel representing Mr. R.S. Mittal contends that statement of Rameshwar that was recorded by the learned Single Judge cannot be taken into consideration till such time, Mr. R.S. Mittal is given an opportunity to crossexamine him and for that reason also it is necessary to record the statement of Rameshwar. Let the statements of Mr. Rameshwar and Mr. A.S. Brar be recorded. After statements of Mr. Rameshwar and Mr. A.S. Brar are recorded, it shall be decided as to what other evidence is to be recorded on behalf of Rameshwar and in support of allegations made against Mr. R.S. Mittal. Office to issue summons to Rameshwar and Mr. A.S. Brar for 10.12.1998. Meanwhile, Mr. R.S. Mittal may also bring on record all documents like receipt issued to Rameshwar, receipt book, ledger and other documents, if any that might have been maintained by him as also incometax returns in proof of his assertions made by him in his reply by 9.11.1998.

To come up for hearing on 10.12.1998."

On 10.12.1998, both Shri Antar Singh, Advocate and Shri Rameshwar were present. The statement of Shri Antar Singh was recorded. However, the statement of Shri Rameshwar could not be completed and the case had to be adjourned because the lawyers decided to abstain from work due to the demise of a young advocate. On the next date i.e. 11.12.1998, the case was adjourned to 11.1.1999 and on the adjourned date the Bench consisting of V.K. Bali and B. Rai, JJ. ordered that the case be listed before some other Bench.

Thereafter, as per the order of Hon''ble the Chief Justice the case was then listed before the Bench of which one of us (G.S. Singhvi) was a member. On 2.2.1999, it was directed that Rameshwar be summoned for 11.2.1999 for completion of his cross examination but due to nonservice of summon his statement could not be completed. Therefore, the case was adjourned to 11.3.1999 on which date cross examination of Rameshwar was completed. On that day learned counsel appearing for nonpetitioner R.S. Mittal made a statement that their client does not want to lead additional evidence.

We shall now consider the question whether nonpetitioner R.S. Mittal had demanded and accepted money in the name of a Judge of this Court and thereby committed contempt of Court within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act.

Shri H.S. Mattewal took us through the statements of Rameshwar and A.S. Brar and submitted that in view of what complainant Rameshwar has stated in the Court, which is substantially inconsistent with what he had stated before the Registrar on 7.8.1998, the allegation levelled against the nonpetitioner cannot be treated as proved and, therefore, the notice issued to him for initiation of contempt proceedings be dropped. Shri M.L. Sarin and Shri R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocates adopted the submission of Shri Mattewal and urged that the Court must not take cognizance of such false and frivolous complaints, else it will become impossible for the lawyers to discharge their professional duties without fear of false implication by the litigants. They submitted that the damage which has been done to the image and reputation of Shri R.S. Mittal due to adverse publicity in the press is irresparable and the Court must issue appropriate directions so that in future the lawyers may not be targeted by the parties who do not get favourable results from the Courts. Shri H.S. Hooda, Advocate General, Haryana, who was requested by us to address the Court, submitted that if the statutory bodies like Bar Council take up the complaints of the litigants in right earnest, then there will be no occasion for the Court to initiate proceedings against the advocates. All the learned counsel lamented that the consumerism has over taken the nobility of the profession and, therefore, steps must be taken to stop the rot.

There cannot be any doubt that if the allegation levelled by complainantRameshwar in his statement dated 7.8.1998 is found correct, appropriate action will have to be taken against the nonpetitioner on the charge of having scandalised the whole judicial system and denigrating the legal fraternity. But, if we find that the complainant has levelled allegation with a view to coerce the nonpetitioner to return his fee, it will become imperative for the Court to take appropriate action against the former so that the litigants are not encouraged to indulge in mudsligning on the advocates and the Courts. Keeping this in view, we have carefully scrutinised the statements of Shri Rameshwar and Shri Antar Singh Brar and the record produced on behalf of the nonpetitioner. In his statement recorded on 7.8.1998 by the Registrar which was supported by Shri Antar Singh Brar, Advocate, Rameshwar stated that he had engaged Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate and had paid Rs. 11,000/ as fee and an additional sum of Rs. 1,000/ to his Clerk. He further stated that after two days, he again met Shri R.S. Mittal. Senior Advocate, who demanded Rs. 40,000/ for payment to the Judge. He paid this amount to Shri Mittal but his appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, Shri Mittal demanded Rs. 11,000/ more for getting the decision altered by saying that no other lawyer can get his work done from the Judge. Shri Ramehswar went on to state that he paid Rs. 11,000/ to Shri Mittal but the case was not decided in his favour and when he asked to return the amount, Shri Mittal told him that the amount cannot be returned as the doctors also do not return the fee even if the patient dies. He further stated that his maternal uncle was present when Rs. 40,000/ was paid to Shri Mittal. In his statement, Shri A.S. Brar identified Rameshwar and endorsed whatever was stated by him before the Registrar.

In the statement recorded in the Court on 10.12.1998, Rameshwar stated that he had engaged Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate who charged Rs. 40,000/ as fee in the first instance and told that his work will be done. Thereafter, Shri Mittal twice charged Rs. 10,000/ by assuring that his work will be done. Rameshwar further stated that he had affixed thumb impression on the statement made before the Registrar, though the same was not read over to him. At that stage, Rameshwar was declared hostile and was crossexamined by Shri H.S. Mattewal and Shri R.S. Cheema. In reply to the question put to him by Shri H.S. Mattewal, Rameshwar denied the suggestion that the Registrar had read over the statement to him and explained the same is vernacular but in the same breath, he stated that he had understood the statement and then thumb marked that same. In reply to another question, he stated that when the case was dismissed by the High Court, Shri R.S. Mittal told him to pay Rs. 40,000/ so that the decision can be rendered in his favour. Thereafter, he had gone to the house of Shri R.S. Mittal and paid him Rs. 11,000/ to get the decision in his favour. In reply to yet another question, he reiterated that Shri R.S. Mittal had told him that no other lawyer can get his work done. He also reiterated his earlier statement that on being asked to return the amount, Shri R.S. Mittal told him that the doctors do not return the fee even if the patient dies. On being crossexamined by Shri R.S. Cheema the complainant stated that he paid Rs. 40,000/ as fee and Rs. 10,000/ on two occasions. In the continued crossexamination, Rameshwar stated that after the dismissal of appeal he had contacted Shri R.S. Mittal for return of the fee who told that the fee is not returned because even when a doctor charges fee from the patient and when the patient dies the fee is not returned but he did not believe the explanation of Shri R.S. Mittal and on being asked to do so by his maternal uncle he made the complaint. In the end, he stated that the complaint was made by him on being misled by his uncle. Some portions of the statement made by Rameshwar in the Court are extracted below :

"Examinationinchief recorded on 10.12.1998.

In a land dispute/case I had engaged Mr. R.S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate. He charged Rs. 40,000/ at the first instance as fee from me and told me that my work will be done. Thereafter he charged Rs. 10,000/. He charged yet another Rs. 10,000/ from me by assuring me that my work will be done. My work was, however, not done as my case was dismissed by the High Court. I then told him to return my money but he refused to return any amount to me. Thereafter my maternal uncle Ram Kumar came from Rajasthan and asked me to file a complaint against Mr. R.S. Mittal."

"Crossexamination by Shri H.S. Mattewal recorded on 10.12.1998.

When my case was dismissed by the High Court, Mr. R.S. Mittal had told me that if I pay to him Rs. 40,000/, the decision can be rendered in his favour. It is correct that thereafter I had gone to the house of Mr. R.S. Mittal and paid him Rs. 11,000/ to get the decision in my favour. It is correct that Mr. R.S. Mittal had told me that no other lawyer can get my work done and then I paid Rs. 11,000/ to Mr. R.S. Mittal."

"Crossexamination by Mr. R.S. Cheema recorded on 10.12.1998.

On 19.5.1998, I had come along with the papers and showed the same to Mr. R.S. Mittal. On that day fee with the lawyer was settled at Rs. 40,000/ and the same was paid ...............

No separate fee of the Clerk of the second counsel was demanded by Mr. R.S. Mittal. As stated above Rs. 10,000/ on two occasions were demanded and were paid. I had paid Rs. 40,000/ at the first instance, thereafter another Rs. 10,000/ was paid when I brought the papers and remaining Rs. 10,000/ after the decision of the case."

"Crossexamination by Mr. R.S. Cheema recorded on 18.3.1999.

It is correct to say that when I had given fee to the Advocate, I had given Rs. 1,000/ separately for expenses. I had telephonically contacted my Advocate one week after 27.5.1998 when I left Chandigarh after signing the affidavit which was to be filed along with the appeal. I had come to know that my appeal had been dismissed but the copy had not been prepared. After another 20 days, I met Shri R.S. Mittal, Advocate for obtaining certified copy of the order. Then the copy of the order was given to me. The copy was handed over to me by Shri R.S. Mittal, Advocate. I am illiterate. I could understand the contents of the order from Shri Ram Kumar, who is my maternal uncle and who read over the order of the Court to me. From that, I came to know that my appeal has been taken back. I told Shri R.S. Mittal, Advocate that my fees be returned because the appeal had been withdrawn. I told him to return the fees because the case had not been contested but he replied that the fees is not returned because even when a doctor charges the fee from the patient and the patient dies, the fee is not returned. Shri Mittal told me that he had argued the case at length but I was not lucky and, therefore, the case was dismissed. I did not believe the explanation given by Shri Mittal. I, therefore, on being asked by my maternal uncle, made a complaint that my appeal had been withdrawn and the fees is not being returned. This complaint was made by me to the Hon''ble Judge personally. I had appeared before the Hon''ble Judge on 7.8.1998. ...........

Shri R.S. Mittal had taken Rs. 50,000/ as fee and Rs. 1,000/ were taken by munshi as expenses. I made the complaint because I was misled by my maternal uncle."

In his statement recorded in the Court, Sri Antar Singh Brar simply stated that he had identified Rameshwar who made statement before the Registrar on 7.8.1998 in his presence. In crossexamination, he admitted that he was convicted on the charge of murder by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Ganga Nagar and his conviction was confirmed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur and further that the S.L.P. filed by him is pending before the Apex Court. He further admitted that he had been appointed as Assistant Advocate General, Punjab but his services were terminated. He denied the suggestion that Rameshwar had been instigated by him without any due justification to initiate the present proceedings.

A careful analysis of these statements reveals that complainant Rameshwar has made patently contradictory statements on 7.8.1998, 10.12.1998 and 18.3.1999. In the first statement, he is alleged to have paid Rs. 11,000/ as fee, whereas in the Court statement he asserted that the amount of fee paid in the first instance was Rs. 40,000/ and Rs. 10,000/ each on two other occasions. In the Court statement he did not assert that he had paid Rs. 40,000/ to Shri Mittal to be paid to the Judge, though in reply to the question put by Shri H.S. Mattewal he did state that after the dismissal of the case by the High Court, Shri R.S. Mittal had told him that if he would pay Rs. 40,000/, the decision can be rendered in his favour and that he paid Rs. 11,000/ to get the favourable decision. The complainant did not stick to the assertion made on 7.8.1998 that he had paid Rs. 11,000/ as fee. He also did not adhere to the assertion made on 10.12.1998 that Shri Mittal had charged Rs. 40,000/ as fee in the first instance and thereafter he had charged Rs. 10,000/ on two different occasions by assuring that his work will be done. Instead, he stated that Shri R.S. Mittal had taken Rs. 50,000/ as fee but refused to return the fee after the appeal had been dismissed as withdrawn. He further stated that the complaint was made by him on being asked by his maternal uncle. In the last portion of cross examination, he asserted that Shri Mittal had taken Rs. 50,000/ as fee and he had made complaint on being misled by his maternal uncle.

The above analysis of the statement of complainantRameshwar shows that he had made contradictory assertions not only about the amount of fee and the mode of payment but also about the demand of money for payment to the Judge. He has changed his version from time to time. In the statement recorded in the Court on 10.12.1988 he merely stated that the nonpetitioner charged him additional amount by assuring that his work will be done. In reply to the question put by Shri H.S. Mattewal, he stated that the nonpetitioner had told him that if he pays Rs. 40,000/ the decision can be rendered in his favour and he had paid him Rs. 11,000/ for this purpose. However, on being cross examined by Shri R.S. Cheema, he did not stick to this assertion as well. In view of these apparent contradictions in the statement of the complaint, it is impossible to record a finding that the nonpetitioner had demanded Rs. 50,000/ or any other amount from him in the name of the Judge or that he had demanded and accepted the amount in addition to the fee by giving an assurance that he will be able to get a favourable decision from the Judge. Rather, it appears that when the complainant came to know that his appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, he demanded return of the fee which Shri R.S. Mittal declined and on being goaded by his maternal uncle or some other well wisher he lodged a complaint with the hope that by doing so, he may be able to secure the return of fee paid to the advocate. We, therefore, hold that the non petitioner cannot be held guilty of having scandalised the Court by demanding and accepting money from the complainant in the name of the Judge. Consequently, the notice of the contempt issued to the nonpetitioner is discharged. At the same time, we direct that the notice be issued to Rameshwar son of Arjan, resident of Village Ganga, District Sirsa to show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for having made an attempt to scandalize the Court by asserting that he had paid money to the advocate in the name of the Judge for getting a favourable result.

The registry is directed to issue notice to him for 15.11.1999.

Before parting with the case, we consider it proper to observe that the episode like the present one can be avoided if the advocates in general observe the code of conduct and ethics and the senior advocates strictly adhere to the rules and the norms prescribed for them. In this case, the complainant repeatedly asserted that he had engaged Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate for filing the second appeal and had paid fee to him. He also stated that certified copy of the order was handed over to him by Shri R.S. Mittal, Senior Advocate. He also stated that when asked to return the fee, Shri R.S. Mittal had told him that the doctors also do not return the fee even if the patient dies. In paragraph 3 of the reply filed by him, nonpetitioner Shri R.S. Mittal has tried to show that the complainant did not contact him by stating that the complainant had engaged Shri Sudhir Mittal with a request to engage him as Senior Counsel and the fee was separately settled for the instructing counsel and senior counsel but no evidence has been produced to controvert the complaint''s assertion that he had paid the amount to Shri R.S. Mittal and had obtained certified copy from him and also that he had contracted Shri R.S. Mittal for return of the fee. We are sure, if the norms of senior advocate were strictly adhered to, the complainant could not have dared to state that Shri R.S. Mittal had demanded the money or had given him certified copy or had declined to return the fee.

In the end, we may take notice of the submission made by Shri M.L. Sarin and Shri R.S. Cheema that some mechanism should be evolved to protect the advocates against false implication by the litigants who fail to get relief from the Court. No doubt, this tendency is growing and unless appropriate measures are taken in this respect at the earliest, it may acquire dangerous proportions in the times to come but the solution to this malady is to be found by the legal fraternity itself. A greater role in these matters can be and should be played by the Bar Councils which are competent to take cognizance of the allegations of misconduct against the advocates. If the Bar Councils deal with these matters with utmost urgency and seriousness, the tendency of the litigants to directly approach the Court with their grievance against the advocates can certainly be curbed. The only thing which can be done by the Court is that the rules can be suitably amended by incorporating a provision for consultation with the Advocates General of the two States before proceedings under the Act are initiated on such complaints. For this purpose, the Bar Council/Bar Association can move the Court on administrative side.