BREACH OF PROFESSIONAL ETHICS BY

LAWYERS
An advocate is the most accountable, privileged and erudite person of the society and
his act are role model for the society, which are necessary to be
regulated. Professional misconduct is the behaviour outside the bounds of what is
considered acceptable or worthy of its membership by the governing body of a
profession.[1] Professional misconduct refers to disgraceful or dishonourable conduct
not befitting an advocate[2]. Chapter V of the Advocate Act, 1961, deals with the
conduct of Advocates. It describes provisions relating to punishment for professional
and other misconducts. Section 35(1) of the Advocate Act, 1961, proviso says, is
relevant in this context. This proviso say, where on receipt of a complain otherwise a
State Bar Council has reason to believe that any advocate on its roll has been guilty of
professional or other misconduct, it shall refer the case for disposal to it disciplinary
committee. In depth the provisions are discussed in the later part. Generally legal
profession is not a trade or business, it’s a gracious, the noble, and decontaminated
profession of the society. Members belonging to this profession have not to encourage
deceitfulness and corruption, but they have to strive to secure justice to their clients.
The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the manner in which the
members of the profession conduct themselves. It’s a symbol of healthy relationship
between Bar and Bench. There is heavy responsibility on those on whom duties’ are
vested by the virtue of being a part of my most credible as plausible profession of the
society.
The Advocates Act, 1961 as well Indian Bar Council are silent in providing exact
definition for profession misconduct because of its scope, though under Advocate Act,
1961 to take disciplinary action punishment are prescribed when the credibility and
reputation on the profession comes under a clout on account of acts of omission and
commission any member of the profession.
What Is The Code Of Conduct Prescribed For An Advocate?
The Bar Council Rules prescribe a strict code of conduct for advocates, it has to
follow[3]:
No advertising or soliciting work, it is against an advocate’s code of ethics to solicit
or advertise work and amounts to a misconduct on the part of the advocate. Both
direct and indirect advertising is prohibited. An advocate may not advertise his
services through circulars, advertisements, touts, personal communication or
interviews not warranted by personal relations. Similarly, the following forms of
indirect advertising are prohibited: (i) by issuing circulars or election manifestos by a
lawyer with his name, profession and address printed on the manifestos, thereby
appealing to the members of the profession practising in the lower courts who are in a
position to recommend clients to counsel practising in the HC. (ii) canvassing for
votes by touring in the province or sending out his clerk or agents to the various
districts, which must necessarily mean directly approaching advocates practising in
subordinate courts. Further, the signboard or nameplate displayed by an advocate
should be of reasonable size. It should not refer to details of an affiliated by the
advocate i.e. that he is or has been president or member of a bar council or of any
association, or he has been a Judge or an Advocate-General, or that he specialises in a
particular kind of work, or that he is or was associated with any person or organisation
or with any particular cause or matter.
Not demand fees for training; An advocate is restrained from demanding any fees for
imparting training to enable any person to qualify for enrolment. Not use
name/services for unauthorised practice; An advocate may not allow his
professional services or his name to be associated with, or be used for any
unauthorised practice of law by any lay agency. Not enter appearance without
consent of the advocate already engaged: an advocate is prohibited from entering
appearance in a case where there is already another advocate engaged for a party
except with the consent of such advocate. However if such consent is not produced,
the advocate must state the reasons for not producing it, and may appear subsequently,
only with the permission of the court.
Duty to opposite party:- While conducting a case, a lawyer has a duty to be fair not
only to his client but also to the court, and to the opposite party. An advocate for a
party must communicate or negotiate with the other parties regarding the subject
matter of controversy, only through the opposite party’s advocate. If an advocate has
made any legitimate promises to the opposite party, he should fulfil the same, even if
the promise was not reduced to writing or enforceable under the rules of the
court. Duties of an advocate towards his client: The relationship between a lawyer
and a client is highly fiduciary and it is the duty of an advocate fearlessly to uphold
the interests of the client by fair and honourable means without regard to any
unpleasant consequences to himself or any other person.
Procedure Followed On The Notice Of Professional Misconduct
The following is the procedure followed (1) In exercise of powers under Section 35
contained in Chapter V entitled “conduct of advocates”, on receipt of a complaint
against an advocate (or suo motu) if the State Bar Council has ‘reason to believe’ that
any advocate on its roll has been guilty of “professional or other misconduct”,
disciplinary proceeding may be initiated against him.
(2) Neither Section 35 nor any other provision of the Act defines the expression ‘legal
misconduct’ or the expression ‘misconduct’. (3) The Disciplinary Committee of the
State Bar Council is authorised to inflict punishment, including removal of his name
from the rolls of the Bar Council and suspending him from practice for a period
deemed fit by it, after giving the advocate concerned and the ‘Advocate General’ of
the State an opportunity of hearing.(4) While under Section 42(1) of the Act the
Disciplinary Committee has been conferred powers vested in a civil court in respect
of certain matters including summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and
examining him on oath, the Act which enjoins the Disciplinary Committee to ‘afford
an opportunity of hearing’ (vide Section 35) to the advocate does not prescribe the
procedure to be followed at the hearing. (5) The procedure to be followed in an
enquiry under Section 35 is outlined in Part VII of the Bar Council of India Rules2
made under the authority of Section 60 of the Act. (6) Rule 8(1) of the said Rules
enjoins the Disciplinary Committee to hear the concerned parties that is to say the
complainant and the concerned advocate as also the Attorney General or the Solicitor
General or the Advocate General. It also enjoins that if it is considered appropriate to
take oral evidence the procedure of the trial of civil suits shall as far as possible be
followed.
Contempt Of Court As Misconduct
In the recent case of B. M. Verma v. Uttrakhand Regulatory Commission[4] court
noted that, it was given the wide powers available with a Court exercising contempt
jurisdiction, court quoted several he Delhi HC, in the case of Court of Its Own
Motion v. State [5], dealing with the contempt proceedings involving two senior
advocates, observed that ‘given the wide powers available with a Court exercising
contempt jurisdiction, it cannot afford to be hypersensitive and therefore, a trivial
misdemeanor would not warrant contempt action. Circumspection is all the more
necessary because as observed by the SC inSC Bar Association v. Union of
India[6] the Court is in effect the jury, the judge and the hangman; while in M.R.
Parashar H. L. Sehgal it was observed that the Court is also a prosecutor. Anil
Kumar Sarkar v.Hirak Ghosh[7], reiterates this.’ In the most controversial and
leading case of R.K. Ananad vs. Registrar of Delhi HC[8] facts, On 30th May, 2007 a
TV news channel NDTV carried a report relating to a sting operation. The report
concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in
an ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the BMW case. On 31st May,
2007 a Division Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ Petition and
issued a direction to the Registrar General to collect all materials that may be
available in respect of the telecast and also directed NDTV to preserve the original
material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting operation. ISSUE :The
question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior
Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal
contempt of Court or not. It was observed that prima facie their acts and conduct
were intended to subvert the administration of justice in the pending BMW case and
in particular influence the outcome of the pending judicial proceedings. Accordingly,
in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution proceedings for
contempt of Court (as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972)
were initiated against Mr. Anand, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma and they
were asked to show cause why they should not be punished accordingly.
HELD : court said that Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke
respect and reverence for the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for
dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the court. Proceedings inside
the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner. The very
sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour,
standing in the court and arguing a case or cross-examining a witness on the same
day, unaffected by the contemptuous behaviour he hurled at the court, would erode the
dignity of the court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the
confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution of the courts. This
necessitates vesting of power with the HC to formulate rules for regulating the
proceedings inside the court including the conduct of advocates during such
proceedings. That power should not be confused with the right to practise law. Thus
court held that there may be ways in which conduct and actions of a malefactor who is
an advocate may pose a real and imminent threat to the purity of court proceedings
cardinal to any court’s functioning, apart from constituting a substantive offence and
contempt of court and professional misconduct. In such a situation the court does not
only have the right but also the obligation to protect itself. Hence, to that end it can
bar the malefactor from appearing before the courts for an appropriate period of time.
In the present case since the contents of the sting recordings were admitted in the
present case, there was no need for the proof of integrity and correctness of the
electronic materials. Finally the SC upheld HC’s verdict making Anand guilty on the
same count. On the other hand, the SC let off I U Khan, who was found guilty by the
HC.
Attempt Of Murder:
In the case of Hikmat Ali khan v. Ishwar prasad arya and ors[9], FACTSIshwar
Prasad Arya, respondent No. 1, was registered as an advocate with the Bar Council of
Uttar Pradesh and was practising at Badaun. An incident took place on May 18, 1971
during lunch interval at about 1.55 p.m., in which respondent No. 1 assaulted his
opponent Radhey Shyam in the Court room of Munsif/Magistrate, Bisauli at Badaun
with a knife. A pistol shot is also said to have been fired by him at the time of
incident. After investigation he was prosecuted for offences under Section 307 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The 1st Temporary Civil and
Sessions Judge, by his judgment dated July 3, 1972, convicted him of the said offence
and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence
under Section 307, I.P.C. and for a period of nine months for offence under Section 25
of the Arms Act.
On the basis of the said complaint disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
respondent No. 1 by the Bar Council of U.P. he was found guilty of gross professional
mis-conduct by taking the benefit himself of a forged and fabricated document which
had been prepared at his behest. The Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of
U.P. directed that respondent No. 1 be debarred from practising as an advocate for a
period of two years from the date of the service of the order. Respondent No. 1 filed
an appeal, the said appeal was allowed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar
Council of India by order dated June 8, 1984 and the order of the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of U.P. dated January 30, 1982 was set aside on the
view that there was no material on the basis of which it could reasonably be held that
respondent No. 1 had prepared the document which was subsequently found
forged.Further the submission of Shri Markendaya is that having regard to the gravity
of the misconduct of respondent No. 1 in assaulting his opponent in the Court room
with a knife and his having been committed the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. and
his being sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years in connection
with the said incident, the punishment of removal of the name of respondent No. 1
from the roll of advocates should have been imposed on him and that the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of U. P. was in error in imposing the light punishment
of debarring respondent No. 1 from practising as an advocate for a period of three
years only and that this was a fit case in which the appeal filed by the appellant should
have been allowed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
HELD: The acts of mis-conduct found established are serious in nature. Under Subsection
(3) of Section 35 of the Act the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar]
Council is empowered to pass an order imposing punishment on an advocate found
guilty of professional or other mis-conduct. Such punishment can be reprimand
[Clause (b)], suspension from practice for a certain period [Clause (c)] and removal of
the name of the advocate from the State roll of advocate [Clause (d)], depending on
the gravity of the mis-conduct found established. The punishment of removal of the
name from the roll of advocates is called for where the misconduct is such as to show
that the advocate is unworthy of remaining in the profession. In this context, it may be
pointed out that under Section 24(A) of the Act a person who is convicted of an
offence involving moral turpitude is disqualified for being admitted as an advocate on
the State roll of advocates. This means that the conduct involving conviction of an
offence involving moral turpitude which would disqualify a person from being
enrolled as an advocate has to be considered a serious misconduct when found to have
been committed by a person who is enrolled as an advocate and it would call for the
imposition of the punishment of removal of the name of the advocate from the roll of
advocates. In the instant case respondent No. 1 has been convicted of the offence of
attempting to commit murder punishable under Section 307, IPC. He had assaulted his
opponent in the Court room with a knife. The gravity of the mis-conduct committed
by him is such as to show that he is unworthy of remaining in the profession. The said
mis-conduct, therefore, called for the imposition of the punishment of removal of the
name of respondent No. 1 from the State roll of advocates and the Disciplinary
Committee of the Bar Council of U. P., in passing the punishment of debarring
respondent No. 1 from practising for a period of three years, has failed to take note of
gravity of the misconduct committed by respondent No. 1. Having regard to the facts
of the case the proper punishment to be imposed on respondent No. 1 under Section
35 of the Act should have been to direct the removal of his name from the State roll of
advocates. The appeal filed by the appellant, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Finally
court held that the respondents name should be removed from the rolls.
Misbehaviour As Misconduct
Vinay chandra mishra, in re [10] facts; In this case a senior advocate in on being
asked a question in the court started to shout at the judge and said that no question
could have been put to him. He threatened to get the judge transferred or see that
impeachment motion is brought against him in Parliament. He further said that he has
turned up many Judges and created a good scene in the Court. He asked the judge to
follow the practice of this Court. he wanted to convey that admission is as a course
and no arguments are heard, at this stage. But this act was not only the question of
insulting of a Judge of this institution but it is a matter of institution as a whole. In
case dignity of Judiciary is not being maintained then where this institution will stand.
The concerned judge wrote a letter informing the incident to the chief justice of India.
A show cause notice was issued to him. ISSUE: whether the advocate had committed
a professional misconduct? Is guilty of the offence of the criminal contempt of the
Court for having interfered with and obstructed the course of justice by trying to
threaten, overawe and overbear the Court by using insulting, disrespectful and
threatening language, and convict him of the said offence. Since the contemner is a
senior member of the Bar and also adorns the high offices such as those of the
Chairman of the Bar Council of India, the President of the U.P. HC Bar Association,
Allahabad and others, his conduct is bound to infect the members of the Bar all over
the country. We are, therefore, of the view that an exemplary punishment has to be
meted out to him. Thus the contemner Vinay Chandra Mishra is hereby sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six weeks and he shall stand suspended
from practising as an advocate for a period of three years.
Strike As Misconduct
Ex-capt. Harish uppal V. Union of India[11]facts, Several Petitions raise the
question whether lawyers have a right to strike and/or give a call for boycotts of
Court/s. In all these Petitions a declaration is sought that such strikes and/or calls for
boycott are illegal. As the questions vitally concerned the legal profession, public
notices were issued to Bar Associations and Bar Councils all over the country.
Pursuant to those notices some Bar Associations and Bar Councils have filed their
responses and have appeared and made submissions before us. ISSUE: whether the
lawyers have a right to strike. ARGUMENTS: petitioners submitted that strike as a
mean for collective bargaining is recognised only in industrial disputes. He submitted
that lawyers who are officers of the Court cannot use strikes as a means to blackmail
the Courts or the clients. He submitted that the Courts must take action against the
Committee members for giving such calls on the basis that they have committed
contempt of court. He submitted that the law is that a lawyer who has accepted a
Vakalat on behalf of a client must attend Court and if he does not attend Court it
would amount to professional misconduct and also contempt of court. He submitted
that Court should now frame rules whereby the Courts regulate the right of lawyers to
appear before the Court. He submitted that Courts should frame rules whereby any
lawyer who mis-conducts himself and commits contempt of court by going on strike
or boycotting a Court will not be allowed to practice in that Court. He further
submitted that abstention from work for the redressal of a grievance should never be
resorted to where other remedies for seeking redressal are available. He submitted that
all attempts should be made to seek redressal from the concerned authorities. He
submitted that where such redressal is not available or not forthcoming, the direction
of the protest can be against that authority and should not be misdirected, e.g., in
cases of alleged police brutalities Courts and litigants should not be targeted in respect
of actions for which they are in no way responsible. He agreed that no force or
coercion should be employed against lawyers who are not in agreement with the
“strike call” and want to discharge their professional duties. Respondent submitted
that lawyers had a right to go on strike or give a call for boycott. He further submitted
that there are many occasions when lawyers require to go, on strike or gave a call for
boycott. He submitted that this Court laying down that going on strike amounts to
misconduct is of no consequence as the Bar Councils have been vested with the power
to decide whether or not an Advocate has committed misconduct. He submitted that
this Court cannot penalise any Advocate for misconduct as the power to discipline is
now exclusively with the Bar Councils. He submitted that it is for the Bar Councils to
decide whether strike should be resorted to or not. Petitioner further relied on the case
of Lt. Col. S.J. Chaudhary v. State (Delhi Administration[12], the HC had directed
that a criminal trial go on from day to day. Before this Court it was urged that the
Advocates were not willing to attend day to day as the trial was likely to be
prolonged. It was held that it is the duty of every advocate who accepts a brief in a
criminal case to attend the trial day to day. It was held that a lawyer would be
committing breach of professional duties if he fails to so attend. In the case of K.
John Koshy and Ors. v. Dr. Tarakeshwar Prasad Shaw[13], one of the questions was
whether the Court should refuse to hear a matter and pass an Order when counsel for
both the sides were absent because of a strike call by the Bar Association. This Court
held that the Court could not refuse to hear the matter as otherwise it would
tantamount to Court becoming a privy to the strike. HELD : considering the sanctity
of the legal profession the court had relied on words said in case of “In Indian
Council of Legal Aid and Advice v. Bar Council of India[14], the SC observed
thus : “It is generally believed that members of the legal profession have certain social
obligations, e.g., to render “pro bono publico” service to the poor and the
underprivileged. Since the duty of a lawyer is to assist the court in the administration
of justice, the practice of law has a public utility flavour and, therefor,e he must
strictly and scrupulously abide by the Code of Conduct behoving the noble profession
and must not indulge in any activity which may tend to lower the image of the
profession in society. That is why the functions of the Bar Council include the laying
down of standards of professional conduct and etiquette which advocates must follow
to maintain the dignity and purity of the profession.” In Re: Sanjeev Datta[15], the
SC has stated thus: “The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a
noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the
entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical
competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by
their exemplary conduct both in and outside the Court. The legal profession is
different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an
individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised
society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a
responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his
professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him
such ideal behavior. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been
held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The
regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to
the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They
took their profession seriously and practice it with dignity, deference and devotion. If
the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be
too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible.” In the case of SC
Bar Association v. Union of India[16] it has been held that professional misconduct
may also amount to Contempt of Court (para 21). It has further been held as
follows: “An Advocate who is found guilty of contempt of court may also, as already
noticed, be guilty of professional misconduct in a given case but it is for the Bar
Council of the State or Bar Council of India to punish that advocate by either
debarring him from practice or suspending his licence, as may be warranted, in the
facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Solicitor General informed us that
there have been cases where the Bar Council of India taking note of the contumacious
and objectionable conduct of an advocate, had initiated disciplinary proceedings
against him and even punished him for “professional misconduct”, on the basis of his
having been found guilty of committing contempt of court.”
Solicitation Of Professional Work
Rajendra V. Pai Vs. Alex Fernandes and Ors.[17]court held that debarring a person
from pursuing his career for his life is an extreme punishment and calls for caution
and circumspection before being passed. No doubt probity and high standards of
ethics and morality in professional career particularly of an advocate must be
maintained and cases of proved professional misconduct severely dealt with; yet, we
strongly feel that the punishment given to the appellant in the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case is so disproportionate as to prick the conscience of the
Court. Excepting the instance forming gravamen of the charge against the appellant
there does not appear to have been any other occasion where the appellant may have
defaulted or misconducted himself. Undoubtedly, the appellant should not have
indulged into prosecuting or defending a litigation in which he had a personal interest
in view of his family property being involved.
Breach Of Trust By Misappropriating The Asset Of Client
Harish Chandra Tiwari v. Baiju[18]; Court held on these fact, Appellant Harish
Chandra Tiwari was enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of the State of UP
in May 1982 and has been practising since then, mainly in the courts at Lakhimpur
Kheri District in UP. Respondent Baiju engaged the delinquent advocate in a land
acquisition case in which the respondent was a claimant for compensation. The
Disciplinary Committee has described the respondent as “an old, helpless, poor
illiterate person.” Compensation of Rs. 8118/- for the acquisition of the land of the
said Baiju was deposited by the State in the court. Appellant applied for releasing the
amount and as per orders of the court he withdrew the said amount on 2.9.1987. But
he did not return it to the client to whom it was payable nor did he inform the client
about the receipt of the amount. Long thereafter, when the client came to know of it
and after failing to get the amount returned by the advocate, compliant was lodged by
him with the Bar Council of the State for initiating suitable disciplinary action against
the appellant.HELD, Court held that among the different types of misconduct
envisaged for a legal practitioner misappropriation of the client’s money must be
regarded as one of the gravest. In this professional capacity the legal practitioner has
to collect money from the client towards expenses of the litigation, or withdraw
money from the court payable to the client or take money of the client to be deposited
in court. In all such cases, when the money of the client reaches his hand it is a trust.
If a public servant misappropriates money he is liable to be punished under the
present Prevention of Corruption Act, with imprisonment which shall not be less than
one year. He is certain to be dismissed from service. But if an advocate
misappropriates money of the client there is no justification in de-escalating the
gravity of the misdemeanour. Perhaps the dimension of the gravity of such breach of
trust would be mitigated when the misappropriation remained only for a temporary
period. There may be justification to award a lesser punishment in a case where the
delinquent advocate returned the money before commencing the disciplinary
proceedings.
Informing About Bribe : Misconduct
Shambhu Ram Yadav v. Hanuman Das Khatry,[19]It was that Court upheld the order
of bar council of India dated 31st July 1999, which held that the appellant has served
as advocated for 50 years and it was not expected of him to indulge in such a practice
of corrupting the judiciary or offering bribe to the judge and he admittedly demanded
Rs.10,000/- from his client and he orally stated that subsequently order was passed in
his client’s favour. This is enough to make him totally unfit to be a lawyer by writing
the letter in question. We cannot impose any lesser punishment than debarring him
permanently from the practice .His name should be struck off from, the roll of
advocates maintained by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. Hereafter the appellant will
not have any right to appear in any Court of Law, Tribunal or any authority. Court
impose a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant which should be paid by the appellant to
the Bar Council of India which has to be within two months
Conclusion: The role of the lawyers in the society is of great importance. They being
part of the system of delivering justice holds great reverence and respect in the
society. Each individual has a well defined code of conduct which needs to be
followed by the person living in the society. A lawyer in discharging his professional
assignment has a duty to his client, a duty to his opponent, a duty to the court, a duty
to the society at large and a duty to himself. It needs a high degree of probity and
poise to strike a balance and arrive at the place of righteous stand, more so, when
there are conflicting claims. While discharging duty to the court, a lawyer should
never knowingly be a party to any deception, design or fraud. While placing the law
before the court a lawyer is at liberty to put forth a proposition and canvass the same
to the best of his wits and ability so as to persuade an exposition which would serve
the interest of his client and the society.
References:
C. Rama Rao, Y. Vijayalakshmi Tayaru, Y. Nageswara Rao, Professional Ethics &
Advocacy,Visakhapatnam : Gayatri Books, 1987.
Prassad Anirudh, Principles of the ethics of legal profession in India : accountancy
for lawyers and bench-bar relations including contempt of court, Jaipur University
Book House, 2004.
Rai. K., History of courts, legislature & legal profession in India, Faridabad :
Allahabad Law Agency, 1985.
Krishnamurthy C, Legal Education and Legal Profession In India, International Journal of Legal Information,36, no. 2,
(2008): 245-26
[1] www.businessdictionary.com/…/professional-misconduct.html accessed on 12March 2010
[2] Vincent Vs. UOI, AIR 1987 SC 990
[3] http://www.indlaw.com/display.aspx?477320d7-5e3f-406f-afb2-4c89753da052/
[4] Appeal No. 156 of 2007
[5] 151 (2008) DLT 695 (Del., DB)
[6] (1998) 4 SCC 409
[7] (2002) 4 SCC 21
[8] (2009) 8 SCC 106
[9] [1997] RD-SC 87
[10] (1995) 2 SCC 584
[11] 2003(1)ALLMR(SC)1169
[12] MANU/SC/0094/1984: 1984CriLJ340
[13] MANU/SC/1313/1998 : (1998)8SCC624
[14] [1995]1SCR304
[15] 1995CriLJ2910
[16] Supra Note 6
[17] AIR 2002 SC 1808
[18] 2002 SCC (Cri,) 294 (SC): AIR 2002 SC 548
[19] (2001) 6 SCC 1. 165