CHANDIGARH, Aug 18: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a contempt notice to a City advocate on charges of seeking bribe from his client in the name of a judge.
A division bench of the court, comprising Justice V.K. Bali and Justice B. Rai, today issued a show-cause notice for September 30 to senior advocate R.S. Mittal, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him on the charges levelled against him. Incidentally, Mittal’s name was recommended for elevation to the Bench in 1978 and 1980.
Mittal was charged on the complaint of one of his clients, Rameshwar, who, along with advocate A.S. Brar, appeared before Justice V.K. Jhanji, alleging that he had paid Rs 51,000 to Mittal, who had demanded the amount in the name of the judge. After receiving the complaint, Justice V.K. Jhanji got the statements of both Rameshwar and Brar recorded before the Registrar (General) of the High Court and recommended action against the accused while referring the matter to Chief Justice A.B. Saharya.
It was recommended that since a specific allegation had been levelled against Mittal, he was liable to be proceeded against under Article 215 of the Constitution and under the Contempt of Courts Act for scandalising and lowering the authority of the court. "The action also amounted to interference in the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice," Justice Jhanji stated in his note.
A case entitled "Rameshwar vs Prithvi Raj etc" was listed as a regular second appeal before Justice V.K. Jhanji in which Rameshwar was one of the appellants. The case filed by Sudhir Mittal and settled by senior advocate R.S. Mittal was disposed of by Justice Jhanji on May 28 this year.
Rameshwar, in his statement before the Registrar (G), alleged that in the particular case, Mittal had demanded a fee of Rs 11,000 besides Rs 1,000 for preparing papers, which was paid in the last week of May. He alleged that on May 29 or May 30, Mittal asked for Rs 40,000 more for making a payment to the judge. Since his appeal was dismissed, Rameshwar alleged that Mittal told him that he was "an unfortunate person".
Later, Rameshwar alleged that at Mittal’s house, an additional Rs 11,000 was demanded for getting the decision altered in his favour, which his lawyer claimed no other person could do. When the appeal did not go in his favour, Rameshwar demanded the money back, but was refused. Rameshwar alleged that he was told that "even a doctor does not return the fee in case the patient dies".