In Brief
An advocate was convicted of contempt of court and suspended from practice for two months for allegedly charging exorbitant fees (Rs. 7.05 lacs) and withdrawing from a criminal case without adequate assistance. The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the contemnor was denied procedural fairness—he was not given the opportunity to adduce evidence or cross-examine the complainant. The Court held that contempt convictions cannot rest on unilateral allegations alone; the accused must have a full hearing. Since the Bar Council had already absolved him regarding disciplinary issues and ordered only partial refund, the criminal conviction lacked legal foundation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.