Criminal contempt from sting recordings: prosecutor's conviction set aside, advocate's contempt upheld, and enhanced punishment kept open.

Criminal contempt could not be sustained against the Special Public Prosecutor because the sting material did not conclusively prove the alleged misconduct and the broader basis of liability was not fairly put to him; his conviction was set aside. The advocate's repeated private meetings with a prosecution witness, discussion of the pending trial, and attempt to influence alignment with the defence were held to amount to suborning a witness and interference with the due course of justice, so the contempt conviction was upheld. The sentence was found too lenient, but any further enhancement required prior notice. A blanket prohibition on appearance before the High Court and subordinate courts could not stand without notice, though limited restraint in appropriate cases was recognised.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor in the sting recording amounted to criminal contempt of court; (ii) whether the advocate's conduct in the sting recordings sustained a conviction for criminal contempt and whether the sentence imposed on him was adequate; (iii) whether the High Court could prohibit the contemnors from appearing before it and the courts subordinate to it in the contempt proceedings.

Issue (i): whether the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor in the sting recording amounted to criminal contempt of court.

Analysis: The exchange between the prosecutor and the witness was found to be professionally improper and inconsistent with the duty of fairness expected of a prosecutor. However, criminal contempt required a clearer and safer foundation than mere impropriety. The materials did not conclusively establish that the expression used by the prosecutor necessarily referred to the defence counsel, and the inference drawn by the High Court rested partly on assumptions and on incomplete material. The Court also held that the prosecutor was not given a full and fair opportunity to meet the broader basis on which liability was ultimately fastened.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal contempt against the prosecutor was not proved; his conviction was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issue (ii): whether the advocate's conduct in the sting recordings sustained a conviction for criminal contempt and whether the sentence imposed on him was adequate.

Analysis: The recordings and the surrounding conduct showed repeated private meetings with a prosecution witness, discussion of the pending trial, and an attempt to facilitate the witness's alignment with the defence. The Court held that the authenticity of the sting material was sufficiently established on the facts of the case and that the appellant's own explanations and affidavits substantially admitted the meetings. The conduct was held to amount to suborning a witness and to interfere with the due course of justice. The Court further held that the sentence imposed by the High Court was too lenient in view of the gravity of the misconduct. At the same time, the direction debarring appearance in court could not be sustained without prior notice and required further proceedings on the question of enhanced punishment.

Conclusion: The conviction for criminal contempt was upheld, but the sentence was found inadequate and the question of enhancement was kept open by notice.

Issue (iii): whether the High Court could prohibit the contemnors from appearing before it and the courts subordinate to it in the contempt proceedings.

Analysis: The Court held that although a High Court has power under its contempt jurisdiction and under the regulatory framework governing appearance of advocates to protect the purity and dignity of court proceedings, such a direction cannot be treated as an ordinary punishment for professional misconduct. In the absence of prior notice that such a consequence might follow, the principles of natural justice were not fully satisfied. The Court also emphasised that any such restraint should ordinarily be resorted to only in exceptional cases and that High Courts should frame rules under the governing statute to regulate such situations clearly.

Conclusion: The impugned prohibition could not stand as imposed, though the Court recognised the High Court's limited power to bar appearance in appropriate cases subject to fair notice.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of the prosecutor succeeded, while the appeal of the advocate failed on conviction but remained open on the question of enhanced punishment; the contempt findings were thus sustained only against the advocate, with further proceedings directed on sentence.

---