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. 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of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were filed in these appeals by Shri Ravinder Seth, Advocate, who superseded Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Advocate.
(3.) 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.;