Quasi-criminal contempt scrutiny led the court to favour an advocate's good-faith explanation and unconditional apology.

Contempt proceedings against an advocate require cautious scrutiny because they are quasi-criminal in nature and liability should not be fastened unless the lapse is shown with certainty to be intentional. On the stated facts, the advocate said the petitions were drafted in a routine format, he relied in good faith on the client's statements and papers, and he had no intent to obstruct justice. The uncertainty was resolved in his favour, especially in light of his seniority, the repetitive nature of the refund petitions, and the unconditional apology. The contempt notice was therefore dropped.

---

---

Issues: Whether the advocate should be proceeded against for contempt on the facts disclosed in the affidavit and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The proceeding was treated as quasi-criminal, requiring caution before fastening contempt liability. The advocate explained that the petitions had been prepared in a routine format, that he had relied on the client's statements and papers in good faith, and that he had no intention to interfere with the course of justice. In the absence of certainty that the alleged lapse was intentional, and considering the seniority of the advocate, the context of repetitive refund petitions, and the unconditional apology tendered, the uncertainty was resolved in his favour.

Conclusion: The contempt notice against the advocate was dropped.

---