B.N. SHIVANNAversusADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.

·•                        [2011] 4 S.C.R. 1


                           B.N. SHIVANNA                            A
                                   v.
                 ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
             (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1038-1039 of 2004)
                          MARCH 14, 2011
                                                                    B
         [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

          Contempt of Court Acts, 1971 - Criminal contempt -
     Lawyer betraying faith of his client - Appel/ant-Advocate
     committed fraud upon his client (respondent-company) and C
     embezzled Rs. 72 lakhs by misusing orders of Court which
     he knew to be incorrect - Contempt proceedings - High Court
     convicted appellant under the Act and sentenced him to six
     months imprisonment - Justification of - Held: Justified -
     Appellant was beneficiary of the fraud and guilty of committing o
     contempt of court - Conduct of the appellant was
     reprehensible and amounted to interference in administration
     of justice - No leniency permissible considering the gravity
     of the charges - Conviction and sentence upheld.
           Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - s. 19 - New plea in E
     criminal appeal before Supreme Court - Maintainability of -
     Contempt proceedings against appellant - Conviction by High
     Court - Challenged before Supreme Court on procedurai
     grounds - Objection raised by appellant that the contempt
     proceedings had been conducted in utter disregard of the F
     statutory rules framed for the purpose - Held: The appellant,
     for reasons best known to him, did not agitate the issue before
     the High Court - No explanation was furnished by the
     appellant as to under what circumstances, the question of fact · ',
     was being agitated first time before the Supreme Court - G
     Moreso, such an issue could not be agitated in absence of
     any application under s.391 of CrPC for taking additional
     evidence on record - No document was filed even before the
     Supreme Court to establish that the statutory provisions had
                                    1                                H
    2        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                     •·
A not been complied with - Objection raised by appellant was
    mere hyper-technical and did not warrant further consideration
    - Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - High Court of Karnataka
    (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 - Rule 7.

         Advocates - Duty of Advocate - Held: An Advocate is
8
    duty-bound to protect the dignity of the court and to behave
    towards his clients in an -appropriate manner.

         The appellant , an advocate practicing in the High
    Court of Karnataka, was engaged as a Retainer by
C   respondent-company for its cases pending in various
    courts in Karnataka. It was alleged that by taking undue
    advantage of his position, the appellant played fraud
    upon the respondent-company by furnishing to it, copies
    of fabricated and forged orders purportedly passed by
D   the Karnataka High Court and embezzled a huge sum of
    Rs. 72 lakhs under various pretexts including payment
    towards purchase of court fees from stamp vendor and
    payment of professional charges to other advocates; and
    as such, interfered with the administration of justice. The
E   High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings
    against the appellant, suo motu (CCC (Crl.) No. 12 of
    2002] and also at the instance of the respondent-
    company the [CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002] and ultimately
    convicted the appellant for committing criminal contempt
F   of court and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for
    a period of six months. Hence, the instant appeals under
    Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
      The appellant contended before this Court that the
  contempt proceedings had been conducted in utter
G disregard of the statutory rules framed for the purpose,
  namely, the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court
  Proceedings) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 7 thereof; that
  respondent company had also launched criminal
  prosecution against the appellant and his conviction
H herein would adversely affect his case in the said criminal
·•    B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.          3

     case; and further that some officials of the respondent-     A·
     company hatched a conspiracy to amass wealth and that
     is why they had enroped the appellant and his relatives
     in these cases.
         Dismissing the appeals, the Court
                                                                  B
          HELD:1. The appellant, for the reasons best known
     to him, did not agitate the issue as regards the application
     of the provisions of Rule 7 of the High Court of Karnataka
     (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules 1981, before the
     High Court and no explanation has been furnished by the c
     counsel appearing for the appellant as under what
     circumstances, the question of fact is being agitated first
     time in criminal appeals before this Court. Moreso, such
     an issue cannot be agitated in absence of any application
     under Section 391 of CrPC for taking the additional
                                                                  0
     evidence on record, nor any document has been filed
     even before this Court to establish that the said
     provisions have not been complied with. Therefore, the
     issue does not require any further consideration so far
     as the procedural aspects are concerned. The objection
     raised by the appellant is mere hyper-technical and does E
     not warrant further consideration. [Paras 10, 15] [10-F-G;
     12-D]
          P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1208;
     State of Kera/a v. M. S. Mani & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 82; Bal    F
     Thackrey v. Harish Pimpa/khute & Anr. AIR 2005 SC 396 and
     Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 592
     - referred to.
          2. So far as merit is concerned, in view of the material
     on record, it is evident that huge amount of money was. G 't.
     collected by the appellant in the name of his mother-in-
     law, the alleged stamp vendor, and the appellant was the
     beneficiary thereof as he had operated the Bank Account
     in her name. It is evident from the evidence on record that
     the appellant had been the beneficiary of fraud alleged in H
    4       SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                  •·
A these cases. Therefore, he is guilty of committing
  contempt of court. The appellant had been an employee
  of the respondent company and because of that
  relationship he had been retained as an Advocate and he
  has a duty towards his clients to behave in an appropriate
B manner and to protect the dignity of the court. The
  conduct of the appellant has been reprehensible and it
  tantamounts to as if the fence established to protect the
  crop starting to eat the crop itself. Thus, such misconduct
  has to be dealt with, with a heavy hand. [Para 19) [13-G-
C H; 14-A]
        Re: Bineet Kumar Singh (2001) 5 SCC 501 - relied on.
          3. It was the duty of the appellant to protect the
    dignity of the court through which he has earned his
    livelihood. There is no force in the submissions made by
0
    him that his conviction in these cases would prejudice
    his cause in the pending criminal trial for the reason that
    both cases are separate and offences are of a different
    nature. [Para 20) [14-8-C]
E      4. The further submission made by the appellant that
  the evidence recorded in the case lodged by the
  respondent company could not have been read In suo
  motu contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court,
  is preposterous, for the reason that they were not cross
F cases and in both the cases, criminal proceedings had
  been initiated on the basis of the same documents and
  the same allegations. It is a case of betrayal of faith by a
  lawyer of his clients, in a case of professional
  engagement. [Para 21) [14-D-E]
G     5. Also there is no force in the submission advanced
  on behalf of the appellant that he has already served 36
  days in jail, thus, the punishment imposed by the High
  Court may be reduced. Considering the gravity of the
  charges, such a course is not warranted and no lenient
H view is permissible in the facts and circumstances of the
·•    B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.               5


     cases. The Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to take the     A
     appellant into custody and send him to jail to serve the
     remaining part of the sentence forthwith. [Paras 22, 23]
     [14-F-G]
                          Case Law Reference:
                                                                      B
         AIR 1988 SC 1208          referred to          Para 11
         c2001) 8 sec 82           referred to          Para 12
         AIR 2005 SC 396           referred to          Para 13
         c201 O) 1 sec 592         referred to          Para 14       c
        · c2001) 5 sec 501         relied on            Para 18
         CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
     Nos. 1038-1039 of 2004.
         From the Judgment & Order dated 18.8.2004 of the High        D
     Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC (Crl.) No. 7 of 2002
     C/w CCC (Crl.) No. 12 of 2004.
           Tomy Sebastian, P. Vishwanatha Shetty, D-. Bharat Kumar,
     Balasubrahmanyam Kamarsu, S.J. Aristotle, Abhijit Sengupta       E
     for the Appellant.
        Naresh Kaushik, Aditya Vikaram, Alok Kaushik, Lalita
     Kaushik, Sanjay R. Hegde, Gurudatta Ankolekhar, V.N.
     Raghupathi for the Respondents.
                                                                      F
         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
           DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. These two appeals have been
     filed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bangalore in CCC(Crl.) Nos. 7 and 12 of 2002
     dated 18.8.2004 by which the appellant has been convicted for G
     committing criminal contempt of court 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.
                                                                    H
    6        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                       •·
A      2. 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. Prior to joining the Bar, he
  had been working for the respondent company as Marketing
B Executive. Being well known to the officials of the company,
  he was engaged as Retainer for the Company and thus, the
  appellant used to report to the company's officials about the
  progress of its cases pending in various courts in Karnataka.
  However, on receiving some orders purported to have been
C passed by the High Court of Karnataka, the officials of the
  company became suspicious and verified from the original
  record, and then submitted a complaint to the High Court that
  the appellant had furnished to the company copies of
  fabricated and forged orders purported to have been passed
  by the Karhataka High Court. On the basis of the same, criminal
0
  contempt proceedings were initiated suo motu by the High
  Court against the appellant by registering a case CCC(Crl.)
  No. 12 of 2002, whereas CCC(Crl.) No. 7 of 2002 was initiated
  at the instance of the respondent company. The High Court
  took cognizance under the provisions of the Contempt of Court
E Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1971') against the
  appellant. The court proceeded with the allegations that the
  appellant had taken advantage of his position telling the said
  company's officials falsely that criminal cases have been
  launched in various courts in Karnataka against various
F 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 made the officials of
  the respondent company believe that a large number of criminal
  cases had been filed against the company and its officials in
G various courts in Karnataka.
         3. 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 company and thereby made
    the higher officials of the company believe that a number of
H
B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.                 7
            [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
criminal cases had been filed against the company and its          A
officials and that there was an urgent need to take immediate
action in that regard. Subsequently, the appellant told the
company 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       B
far successfully avoided.
     4. The appellant advised the company officials to file
criminal petitions in the High Court of Karnataka for quashing
of the said criminal proceedings alleged to be pending in the
courts at Hubli, Mysore, Chitradurga, Bellary, Sandur, Raichur     C
etc., and the appellant asked the company in writing to pay a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the court 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.
The company having full faith in the appellant remitted the said   D
amount of court fee of Rs.10,000/- in each case for purchasing
the court fees from the vendor, namely, Smt. S. Gauri, who was
none other than the mother-in-law of the appellant. The company
sent cheques in the names of Smt. S. Gauri as well as the
appellant towards the court fees and his professional charges      E
and other expenses. As the appellant had told the officials of
the company that more than 500 criminal cases had been filed
by various persons against the company and its officials, a sum
of Rs.62 lakhs was paid by the company through cheques in
the name of the appellant as well as Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged
                                                                   F
stamp vendor. The appellant also got a huge amount from the
company under the pretext of payment of professional charges
to other advocates purported to have been engaged by him to
represent the company in various subordinate courts of the
State. Thus, in all, according to the company, a sum of Rs. 72
lakhs had been paid to the appellant apart from his
                                                                   G
professional charges. In order to justify his bonafides and to
show the result of his professional engagement and on enquiry
by the company, the appellant is alleged to have produced a
copy of the order dated 3.10.2001, purported to have been
                                                                   H
    8        SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 4 S.C.R.


A passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Patri Basavanagowda of
  Karnataka High Court, showing that 341 criminal petitions filed
  by the company, had been allowed by the High Court and
  criminal proceedings launched against the company in those
  cases stood quashed.
B       5. It was, in fact, later on when the company's officials
  came to know that no court fee was payable in criminal cases
  filed before the High Court, that it made discreet inquiries and
  learnt that the amount had been collected by the appellant in
  the name of his mother-in-law Smt. S. Gauri, the alleged stamp
C vendor, fraudulently. On further inquiry, said officials came to
  know that the alleged stamp vendor Smt. S. Gauri was only a
  housewife and not a stamp vendor and the bank account for
  which the cheques were issued in her name, was being
  operated by the appellant himself, and no case had ever been
D filed in any subordinate court against the said company.
        6. Being aggrieved, the company 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
E 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 coming to know
  about these fact&, the High Court itself suo motu initiated
  criminal contempt proceedings against the appellant. Notices
F were issued to the appellant and on his appearance, he denied
  the charges and was tried for the said allegations clubbing both
  the cases. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of 5
  witnesses and marked a large number of documents. The
  appellant did not lead any oral evidence but marked several
G documents. After completing the trial, the High Court convicted
  the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove.
  Hence, these appeals under Section 19 of the Act 1971.
       7. S/Shri Tony Sebastian and P. Vishwanatha Shetty,
  learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, have
H submitted that proceedings have been conducted in utter
•   B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
                [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
                                                                 9


disregard to the statutory rules framed for the purpose, namely,      A
the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings)
Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1981 '). It has
been submitted that Rule 7 thereof has not been complied with
at the time of initiation of the proceedings. Rule 7 reads as
under:                                                                B
      "7. Initiation of proceedings on information - (i) Any
      information other than a petition or reference shall, in the
      first instance, be placed before the Chief Justice on the
      administrative side.
                                                                      c
      (ii) If the Chief Justice or such other Judge as may be
      designated by him for the purpose, considers it expedient
      or proper to take action under the Act, he shall direct that
      the said information be placed for preliminary hearing."
                                                                      D
     In view· of the above, it is submitted that none of the matter
had been placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justiqe on,..the
administrative side and the matter has been placed directly
before the Division Bench which heard the matters after having
some preliminary inquiry by the Registry of the High Court from
                                                                      E
the Secretary of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Patri Basavanagowda.
Thus, the proceedings stood vitiated for non-compliance of the
statutory requirement. It is further submitted that the respondent
company has also launched a criminal prosecution against the
appellant and the police after investigating the case, has filed
the chargesheet against the appellant, and Smt. S. Gauri, his         F
mother-in-law. However, the trial has not started in view of the
pendency of these appeals before this Court. The appellant's
conviction would adversely affect the case of the appellant in
the said criminal case. In fact, some officials of the company
have hatched a conspiracy to amass wealth and that is why they        G
have enroped the appellant and his relatives in these cases.
The appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court is liable to be set aside.

      8. On the other hand, S/Shri Naresh Kaushik and                 H
    10        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                        •
A Gurudatta Ankolekar, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondents, have opposed the appeal contending that the
  appellant being an advocate, had indulged in criminal activity
  and succeeded in having embezzled huge amount of more than
  Rs. 72 lacs, thus, he committed fraud upon the company of
B which the appellant had earlier been an employee and at the
  relevant time, a Retainer. His illegal activities amounted to
  interference in the administration of justice, thus, the High Court
  has rightly convicted the appellant and imposed the maximum
  sentence provided under the Act 1971. The facts and
c circumstances of the case do not require any interference by
  this Court, the appeals lack merit and are liable to be
  dismissed.

         9. We have considered the rival submissions made by
    learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
D
       The facts are not in dispute, the findings of fact recorded
  by the High Court do not require any interference for the reason
  that nothing has been shown to us on the basis of which it can
  be held that the findings are perverse, are based on no
E evidence or are contrary to the evidence on record.

         10. The issue regarding the application of the provisions
  of Rule 7 of the Rules 1981 has to be dealt with elaborately.
  The appellant, for the reasons best known to him, did not agitate
  this issue before the High Court and no explanation has been
F furnished by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as
  under what circumstances, the question of fact is being agitated
  first time in criminal appeals before this Court. More so, such
  an issue cannot be agitated in absence of any application under
  Section 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter
G called Cr.P.C.) for taking the additional evidence on record, nor
  any document has been filed even before this Court to establish
  that the said provisions have not been complied with.

      11. In P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shanker & Ors., AIR 1988 SC
H 1208, this Court while considering the provisions of Section
•    B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.--11
                 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
    15(1 )(a) and (b) of the Act 1971 and the Contempt of Supreme         A
    Court Rules, 1975, held that if any information was lodged even
    in the form of a petition inviting the Court to take action under
    the Act 1971 or the provisions of the Constitution dealing with
    the contempt of court, where the informant is not one of the
    persons named in Section 15 of the Act 1971, it should not be         9   1

    styled as a petition and should not be placed for admission on
    the judicial side of the court. Such a petition is required to be
    placed before the Chief Justice for orders in Chambers and
    the Chief Justice may decide either by himself or in consultation
    with the other Judges of the Court, whether to take any               c
    cognizance of the information. Thus, in a case where the                  I
    Attorney General/Advocate General refuses to give the consent
    to initiate contempt proceedings; the aforesaid course is
    mandatory.

          12. In State of Kera/av. M.S. Mani & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC         D
    82, this Court held that the requirement of obtaining prior
    consent of the Advocate General in writing for initiating
    proceedings of criminal contempt is mandatory and failure to
    obtain the prior consent would render the motion. non-
    maintainable. In case, a party obtains consent subsequent to          E
    filing the petition, it would not cure the initial defect and thus,
    the petition would not become maintainable.

         13. In Bal Thackrey v. Harish Pimpa/khute & Anr., AIR
    2005 SC 396, this Court held that in absence of the consent           F
    of the Advocate General in respect of a criminal contempt filed
    by a party under Section 15 of the Act 1971, taking suo motu
    action for contempt without a prayer, was not maintainable.

         14. However, in Amicus Curiae v. Prashant Bhushan &
    Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 592, this Court has considered the earlier G
    judgments and held that in a rare case, even if the cognizance
    deemed to have been taken in terms of the Supreme Court
    Rules, without the consent of the Attorney General or the
    Solicitor General, the proceedings must be held to be
    maintainable in view of the fact that the issue involved in the H
    12       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011) 4 S.C.R.

A   proceedings had far reaching greater ramifications and impact
    on the administration of justice and on the justice delivery
    system and the credibility of the court in the eyes of general
    public than what was under consideration before this Court in
    earlier cases.
B
         15. In the instant case, the question of whether the matter
  had been placed before the Chief Justice in Chambers is a
  question of fact. The issue has not been agitated before the
  High Court, rather the complaint filed by the Registrar General
C of the High Court makes it clear that the complaint itself has
  been filed on behalf of the High Court by the Advocate General.
  It is evident from the record that case CCC(Crl.) No. 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. Therefore, the issue does not require any further
D consideration so far as the procedural aspects are concerned.
  Thus, in view of the above, the objection raised by the appellant
  is mere hyper-technical and does not want further
  consideration.

E       16. It is evident that the charges had been framed in
    accordance with law on 22.7.2002 and that the appellant has
    been given full opportunity to defend himself. All the documents
    placed before the High Court have been appreciated and
    considered.
F      17. So far as merit is concerned, we have been taken to
  various documents and to the evidence of the witnesses. There
  are certain documents to show that the appellant on certain
  occasions has also rendered a good service to the company.
  Some documents are also on record to show that some officials
G had an intention to misappropriate the funds of the company
  for their personal gain with the connivance of the appellant.
  However, there is nothing on record to show that they could
  succeed to any extent. Therefore, the defence taken by the
  appellant remains unsubstantiated. In view of the material on
H record, it is evident that the huge amount of money has been
•   B.N. SHIVANNA v. ADVANTA INDIA LIMITED & ANR.
                [DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
                                                                  13


    collected by the appellant in the name of his mother-in-law, Smt.   A
    S. Gauri, the alleged stamp vendor, and the appellant has been
    the beneficiary thereof as he had operated the Bank Account
    in her name.
         18. In Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501, while
    dealing with a case of similar nature, this Court held as under:    B
        "....The sole object of the court wielding its power to punish
        for contempt is always for the course of administration of
        justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of
        justice than to preserve their proceedings from being c
        misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious
        when the order of the court is forged and produced to gain
        undue advantage. Criminal contempt has been defined in
        Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration
        of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong
                                                                         0
        statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the
        proceedings to obtain a favourable order would
        undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course
        of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have
        utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be
        incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not E
        entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated
        order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold
        him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether
        he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication .....•
        (Emphasis added).                                                F
         19. It is evident from the evidence on record that the
    appellant had been the beneficiary of fraud alleged in these
    cases. Therefore, in view of the law referred to hereinabove,
    he is guilty of committing contempt of court. The appellant had G
    been an employee of the respondent company and because
    of that relationship he had been retained as an Advocate and
    he has a duty towards his clients to behave in an appropriate
    manner and to protect the dignity of the court. The conduct of
    the appellant has been reprehensible and it is tantamount to H
    14        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                         •
A as if the fence established to protect the crop starting to eat
  the crop itself. Thus, such misconduct has to be dealt with, with
  a heavy hand.
       20. We do find any force in the submissions made by
B learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction of the
  appellant in these cases would prejudice his cause in the
  pending criminal trial for the reason that both cases are
  separate and for offences of a different nature. It was the duty
  of the appellant to protect the dignity of the court through which
  he has earned his livelihood.
c
       21. The submission made by learned counsel for the
  appellant that both complaints could not have been clubbed
  together and the evidence recorded in the case lodged by the
  respondent company could not have been read in suo motu
0 contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court, is
  preposterous, for the reason that they were not cross cases and
  in both the cases, criminal proceedings had been initiated on
  the basis of the same documents and the same allegations. It
  is a case of betrayal of faith by a lawyer of his clients, in a case
E of professional engagement.
       22. We also do not find any force in the submission
  advanced on behalf of the appellant that he has already served
  36 days in jail, thus, the punishment imposed by the High Court
  may be reduced. Considering the gravity of the charges, such
F a course is not warranted and no lenient view is permissible in
  the facts and circumstances of the cases.
       23. In view of the above, the appeals lack merit and are
  accordingly dismissed. We request the learned Chief Judicial
  Magistrate, Bangalore to take the appellant into custody and
G send him to jail to serve the remaining part of the sentence
  forthwith. A copy of the order may be transmitted by the
  Registry of this Court to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
  Bangalore for taking appropriate further steps.

H B.B.B.                                       Appeals dismissed.