The main legal point established in the judgment is that advocates have a duty to maintain a high standard of professional conduct, including the proper handling of clients' money and the ethical filing of legal documents.

K.S.Garewal, J

1. Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate, is the contemner before us to answer the contempt notice issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge on February 23, 1983.

2. This case raises certain fundamental issues of legal ethics, an advocate’s duty towards his clients and how an advocate should deal with his clients’ money entrusted to him for legal expenses. The other question is whether it is criminal contempt of court (interfering in the administration of justice) if the advocate changes the date of the judgment in the certified copy to bring the appeal within limitation.

3. Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, had decided a bunch of references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on January 4, 1980. The landowners Baljit Singh, Mokam Singh and Thath Singh were naturally interested in filing appeals before the High Court to challenge the award. R.F.As 658, 659 and 660 of 1982 were filed by them on December 16, 1981, through Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate. Subsequently, applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were filed in these appeals by Shri Ravinder Seth, Advocate, who superseded Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate.

4. The above applications came up before the Hon’ble Single Judge on August 31, 1982 and it was found that the dates on the certified copies of the judgments supplied by the Additional District Judge had been tampered with, obviously to bring the appeals within the period of limitation. It is this act of tampering with the certified copies that is the subject matter of these proceedings.

5. The Hon’ble Single Judge on August 31, 1982 ordered District Judge (Vigilance), Haryana to hold an inquiry to find out the dates on which applications for copies had been filed, the dates when the copies were prepared and supplied. There was a further direction that in case the District Judge came to the conclusion that there was tampering with the dates, he would not hesitate to get a criminal case registered. The conclusion reached by District Judge (Vigilance), Haryana in his report dated January 31, 1983 is as under:-

“ Shri M.L..Sharma by filing the three R.F.As with tampered certified copies had attempted to beguile the Court thereby obstructing the interest of justice” …………. “there is no indication that Shri M.L.Sharma was instrumental in effecting material alteration, but there is sufficient material to show that he has been a privy to it and therefore, liable for the abatement (sic) of the criminal offence committed by Shri D.S.Sadnhu, Advocate. Shri M.L.Sharma has to reply to the charges of abatement(sic), namely under Sections 193/196/465/471 read with Section 109 I.P.C.”…………… “It is prima facie clear that Shri M.L.Sharma, Advocate had tried to overreach and mislead the Court. His action has caused obstruction to the interest of justice and amounts to contempt of Court as well.”

6. The learned District Judge Vigilance also concluded that:

“tampering of dates in the certified copies had been effected in a very crude manner which is apparent to the naked eye.”

7. Shri Madan Lal Sharma’s explanation in his affidavit dated May 13, 1983 was that it had all been done by Shri D.S. Sandhu, Advocate, to whom payments had been made by the appellants for filing R.F.As. It was Sh. Sandhu who had intentionally tampered with the documents. Shri Madan Lal Sharma also offered an unqualified apology. On May 13, 1983 Hon’ble Single Judge was of the view that it would be proper to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings and the contempt petition was adjourned.

8. On September 17, 1984 the Hon'ble Division Bench, after referring to Court’s order dated May 13, 1983, adjourned the contempt petition sine die to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

9. The matter was again placed before the Hon'ble Division Bench on March 17, 2006 but it was yet again adjourned sine die as the criminal proceedings were still pending.

10. However, when the matter was placed before the Hon'b