ORDER

1. Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, Advocate, is present in Court today. He has filed yet another affidavit. The same is taken on record and it should be kept in a sealed cover.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as Mr. Utsav Singh Bains, who appears in person. With respect to the privilege claimed in the affidavits, we have considered Section 126 of the Evidence Act. The same reads as under :-

"126. Professional communications.-No barrister, attorney, pleader or vakil shall at any time be permitted, unless with his client's express consent, to disclose any communication made to him in the course and for the purpose of his employment as such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, by or on behalf of his client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him to his client in the course and for the purpose of such employment: Provided that nothing in this section shall protect from disclosure-l.Any such communication made in furtherance of any illegal purpose;

2. Any fact observed by any barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil, in the course of his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has been committed since the commencement of his employment.

It is immaterial whether the attention of such barrister, pleader, attorney or vakil was or was not directed to such fact by or on behalf of his client.

Explanation.- The obligation stated in this section continues after the employment has ceased. Illustrations -

(a) A, a client, says to B, an attorney-"! have committed forgery, and I wish you to defend me".

As the defence of a man known to be guilty is not a criminal purpose, this communication is protected from disclosure.

(b) A, a client, says to B, an attorney-"! wish to obtain possession of property by the use of a forged deed on which I request you to sue".

This communication, being made in furtherance of a criminal purpose, is not protected from disclosure.

(c) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, an attorney, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entry has been made in A's account-book, charging A with the sum said to have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement of his employment.

This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment, showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of the proceedings, it is not protected from disclosure."

3. The provisos to Section 126 of the Evidence Act make it clear that no such privilege can be claimed in respect of such communication. It is further apparent from Illustration (c), as extracted above, that such information cannot be claimed to be a privileged information.

4. Apart from this, we have considered the Judgment of this Court in People's Union for Civil Liberties and Another Vs. Union of India, reported in (2004) 9 SCC 580 . Para 38 of this Judgment reads as under :-

"38. It is settled position of law that a journalist or lawyer does not have a sacrosanct right to withhold information regarding crime under the guise of professional ethics. A lawyer cannot claim a right over professional communication beyond what is permitted under Section 126 of the Evidence Act. There is also no law that permits a newspaper or journalist to withhold relevant information from Courts though they have been given such power by virtue of Section 15(2) of the Press Council Act, 1978 as against the Press Council. (See also : M.S.M Sharma V. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha and Sewakram Sobhani V. R.K Karanjia, which quoted Arnold V. King Emperor with approval and also British Steel Corpn. V. Granada Television and Branzburg V. Hayes.) Of course the investigating officers will be circumspect and cautious in requiring them to disclose information. In the process of obtaining information, if any right of citizen is violated, nothing prevents him fro