After companypleting the trial, the High Court companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.
On companying to know about these facts, the High Court itself suo motu initiated criminal companytempt proceedings against the appellant.
7 of 2002 was initiated at the instance of the respondent companypany.
Being well known to the officials of the companypany, he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the appellant used to report to the companypanys officials about the progress of its cases pending in various companyrts in Karnataka.
and the appellant asked the companypany in writing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ towards the companyrt fee in each case for filing of criminal petitions before the High Court in addition to other miscellaneous expenses like his professional fee, typing etc.
Subsequently, the appellant told the companypany 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.
Hence, these appeals under Section 19 of the Act 1971.
Prior to joining the Bar, he had been working for the respondent companypany as Marketing Executive.
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 companypany and thereby made the higher officials of the companypany believe that a number of criminal cases had been filed against the companypany and its officials and that there was an urgent need to take immediate action in that regard.
In order to justify his bonafides and to show the result of his professional engagement and on enquiry by the companypany, the appellant is alleged to have produced a companyy of the order dated 3.10.2001, purported to have been passed by Honble Mr. Justice G. Patri Basavanagowda of Karnataka High Court, showing that 341 criminal petitions filed by the companypany, had been allowed by the High Court and criminal proceedings launched against the companypany in those cases stood quashed.
The companypany sent cheques in the names of Smt.
S. Gauri, who was numbere other than the mother in law of the appellant.
S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor, fraudulently.
The appellant also got a huge amount from the companypany under the pretext of payment of professional charges to other advocates purported to have been engaged by him to represent the companypany in various subordinate companyrts of the State.
S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor.
On further inquiry, said officials came to know that the alleged stamp vendor Smt.
The companypany having full faith in the appellant remitted the said amount of companyrt fee of Rs.10,000/ in each case for purchasing the companyrt fees from the vendor, namely, Smt.
72 lakhs had been paid to the appellant apart from his professional charges.
12 of 2002, whereas CCC Crl.
The High Court took companynizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as Act 1971 against the appellant.
S. Gauri as well as the appellant towards the companyrt fees and his professional charges and other expenses.
The companyrt proceeded with the allegations that the appellant had taken advantage of his position telling the said companypanys officials falsely that criminal cases have been launched in various companyrts 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 advised the companypany officials to file criminal petitions in the High Court of Karnataka for quashing of the said criminal proceedings alleged to be pending in the companyrts at Hubli, Mysore, Chitradurga, Bellary, Sandur, Raichur etc.,
The appellant made the officials of the respondent companypany believe that a large number of criminal cases had been filed against the companypany and its officials in various companyrts in Karnataka.
S. Gauri was only a housewife and number a stamp vendor and the bank account for which the cheques were issued in her name, was being operated by the appellant himself, and numbercase had ever been filed in any subordinate companyrt against the said companypany.
Being aggrieved, the companypany wrote a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka mentioning all the afore mentioned facts submitting that the appellant had played fraud upon them by providing the forged and fabricated order purported to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka and as such, abused the process of law and interfered with the administration of justice.
On the basis of the same, criminal companytempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High Court against the appellant by registering a case CCC Crl.
However, on receiving some orders purported to have been passed by the High Court of Karnataka, the officials of the companypany became suspicious and verified from the original record, and then submitted a companyplaint to the High Court that the appellant had furnished to the companypany companyies of fabricated and forged orders purported to have been passed by the Karnataka High Court.
Thus, in all, according to the companypany, a sum of Rs.
As the appellant had told the officials of the companypany that more than 500 criminal cases had been filed by various persons against the companypany and its officials, a sum of Rs.62 lakhs was paid by the companypany through cheques in the name of the appellant as well as Smt.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC Crl.
12 of 2002 has been filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Karnataka suo motu through the Advocate General of the State.
It was, in fact, later on when the companypanys officials came to know that numbercourt fee was payable in criminal cases filed before the High Court, that it made discreet inquiries and learnt that the amount had been companylected by the appellant in the name of his mother in law Smt.
7 and 12 of 2002 dated 18.8.2004 by which the appellant has been companyvicted for companymitting criminal companytempt of companyrt 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.
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.
Notices were issued to the appellant and on his appearance, he denied the charges and was tried for the said allegations clubbing both the cases.
