Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ori) 2842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J
Jagabandhu Das – Appellant
Versus
Sanjib Kumar Mallick – Respondent
ELPET No.29 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: G. K. Agarwal, Pratin Tejasman
For the Respondents: Swayambhu Mishra
Impersonating an advocate by using a false enrolment certificate to represent a party in court constitutes criminal contempt as it obstructs the administration of justice and interferes with judicial proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Contempt - Impersonation of Advocate - Representing a party before the Court without a valid enrolment certificate and misleading the Court by providing a false enrolment number constitutes an act that interferes with the due course of judicial proceedings and obstructs the administration of justice, amounting to criminal contempt. (Para 11)
(B) Procedure for Contempt - Contempt not committed in the face of the Court - Where the contempt is based on materials collected during an investigation rather than being perceived directly by the Court, the summary procedure under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is not applicable; instead, the procedure under Sections 15 and 18 of the Act and High Court Rules applies. (Para 7, 8)
(C) Jurisdiction - Hearing of Criminal Contempt - Proceedings relating to criminal contempt must be heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. (Para 8)
Issues: Whether the act of representing a party as an advocate without a valid enrolment certificate and misleading the court constitutes criminal contempt.
ORDER
Order No. 29.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. This Court vide order dated 12.09.2025 in I.A No.152 of 2024, arising out of ELPET No.29 of 2024, directed the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Orissa to register an FIR against Dr. Subash Mohapatra upon finding prima facie materials disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, more particularly, offence of impersonation as an Advocate, as Mr. Mohapatra, despite being granted ample of opportunities, failed to produce his Enrolment Certificate as a lawyer before this Court.
3. Pursuant to the said order, FIR No.387 of 2025 was registered by the Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack on 20.09.2025. Subsequently, Dr. Subash Mohaptra was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 03.12.2025 and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted before the competent Court on 29.01.2026. As per the order dated 12.09.2025, a copy of the said charge-sheet was also sent to the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court by the IIC, Lalbag Police Station, Cuttack UPD vide letter dated 24.03.2026, which was placed before this Court.
4. On perusal of the charge-sheet dated 29.01.2026, it is ascertained that the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation, has examined various witnesses, collected documentary materials, and thereafter submitted the charge-sheet alleging commission of certain offences under the penal law. Since, the matter is now sub-judice before the learned SDJM(S), Cuttack, this Court considers it appropriate to refrain from making any observation on the merits of such criminal prosecution.
5. Notwithstanding the pendency of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, this Court is required to consider whether the conduct of Dr. Subash Mahaptara in ELPET No.29 of 2024, wherein he was representing the Election Petitioner as an Advocate before this Court without possessing a valid Enrolment Certificate, warrants initiation of a criminal contempt proceeding against him specifically, when the Investigating Agency, upon due investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against him recording prima facie satisfaction that, the name of Dr. Subash Mohapatra does not find place on the rolls of the Bar Council of Delhi.
6. The term ‘Criminal Contempt’ has been defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which reads as follow;
“(c) “criminal contempt” means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or
(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;”
7. So far as the procedure for initiation of contempt is concerned, Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as relied upon by Mr. Agarwal, learned Sr. Counsel, provides for a summary procedure in cases of contempt committed in the face of the Supreme Court or High Court, where the Court directly perceives the impugned conduct and proceeds in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. However, the present case, being founded upon materials collected during investigation so also reflected in the charge-sheet, cannot be said to involve contempt committed in the face of the Court so as to attract Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Rather, the allegations falling within the ambit of criminal contempt are required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Chapter XVII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, read with Sections 15 and 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
8. At this juncture, reference may be made to Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which clarifies
