<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (8) TMI 968 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197435</link>
    <description>A lawyer or prosecutor&#039;s conduct in a pending matter amounts to criminal contempt where proved acts create a real tendency to interfere with judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. Applying that principle, the Delhi HC found that recorded interactions showing unusual contact between the defence advocate, the special public prosecutor, and a witness, including discussion of strategy and witness handling, established contempt against Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan. It treated Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma&#039;s role as peripheral and did not find contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also accepted original electronic chips from the sting operation as genuine and reliable, and imposed professional restraint and monetary penalties on the two contemnors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 06 Jan 2018 13:13:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=503395" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 968 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197435</link>
      <description>A lawyer or prosecutor&#039;s conduct in a pending matter amounts to criminal contempt where proved acts create a real tendency to interfere with judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. Applying that principle, the Delhi HC found that recorded interactions showing unusual contact between the defence advocate, the special public prosecutor, and a witness, including discussion of strategy and witness handling, established contempt against Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan. It treated Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma&#039;s role as peripheral and did not find contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also accepted original electronic chips from the sting operation as genuine and reliable, and imposed professional restraint and monetary penalties on the two contemnors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>