Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reservedon06.05.2015
Deliveredon02.07.2015
CourtNo.34
Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013
Applicant:InRe
OppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&Others
CounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotra
CounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.
Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
(DeliveredbyHon.SudhirAgarwal,J.)
1.
Referencevideletterdated15.4.2013wasmadebyShriAmitKumar
2
functioning.Theyalsostartedusingabusivelanguage,whichisnottobe
disclosed.Inthecourtroomitselftheaforesaidadvocatesraisedslogans
nayayalaymurdabad,adhivaktaektazindabad,onaccountwhereof,the
courtfunctioninghadtobedeferredforsometime.InthatwayMahendra
PrasadShukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathakand1520other
advocatesobstructedfunctioningofthecourt.
2.
advocatesenteredthecourtroomofChiefJudicialMagistrate(hereinafter
referredtoas'CJM')andpreventedthoseadvocates,whowereworkingand
askednottoworkwhereuponCJM,Sonbhadrasaidthatthoseadvocate
whoarewillingtowork,cannotbestoppedfromfunctioninganditisduty
of court to attend cases of litigants and advocates, who are present in
court and willing to work whereupon the disturbing advocates started
raising slogans nayayalay murdabad adhivakta ekta zindabad and
creating obstruction in judicial work. Mahandra Prasad Shukla was
GeneralSecretaryofBarAssociationatthattimeandhewasalsopresent
incourtroomofCJM,creatingobstructioninjudicialwork.
3.
3
4.
Shukla,OmPrakashRaiandOmPrakashPathak,advocatesandother
1520 advocates, shown in his court, not only has the effect of
scandalizing the court but also lower down its authority since the
aforesaid act was committed openly, in presence of litigating public in
courtroom,andsameamountstoacriminalcontempt.
5.
UndertheorderofHon'bleTheChiefJustice,dated26.3.2015,the
referenceletterwasplacedbeforeBenchhavingdeterminationofcriminal
contempt.ADivisionBenchconsistingofHon'bleRavindraSinghandAnil
KumarAgarwal,JJ.On30.9.2013,afterperusingReferenceLetterdated
15.4.2013,issuednoticestoMahendraPrasadShukl,OmPrakashRaiand
OmPrakashPathak,Advocatestofilereply,whyproceedingsofcriminal
contemptmaynotbeinitiatedagainstthemandtheymaynotbecharged
forthesame.Besides,theCourtalsodirectedDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra
toinquireintothematterandfindoutnamesof1520otheradvocates,
who also participated in disturbing activities in court room of ACJM,
Sonbhadraasstatedbyhiminhisletterdated15.4.2013.
6.
TheDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra mentionedthenamesofaforesaid
advocatesinviewofstatementsofAdvocatesJagjeevanSingh,RoshanLal
Yadav,Titu PrasadGupta,RavindraSingh.Thestatementsofaforesaid
advocates were also supported by Shri Tarkeshwar Tiwari, the then
4
Assistant Clerk(Criminal) and Shri Raj Karan, Stenographer, postedin
courtofAdditionalChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadra.
8.
thisCourt,videorderdated11.11.2013,issuednoticestoaforesaideight
advocates.
9.
AlltheContemnors,soughtforcopyofinquiryreportsubmittedby
Thegeneraldefencetakenbyall11contemnorsisasunder:
(i)MahendraPrasadShukla:
He hadgone toappearintheCourt ofAdditionalChief Judicial
Magistrate to oppose a bail application whereupon the Presiding
Officerdeclinedtohearhimstatingthatheshouldgetnoobjection
from Bar Association which has passed a resolution to abstain
fromtheCourtandhewas notallowedtoparticipateinjudicial
proceedingsandhisnamehasbeenwronglymentioned.
(ii)OmPrakashRai:
His name has wrongly been included and actually he was not
present.
(iii)OmPrakashPathak:
He was not present in the Court Room and did not disturb the
proceedings, as alleged, and his name has wrongly been
mentioned.
(iv)SheshNarayanDixit:
As a matter of fact, at that time when the alleged incident is
claimedtohavetakenplace, hewaspresentandworkinginthe
CourtofDistrictJudgeandhisnamehasbeenincludedonaccount
of enmityof some otherAdvocates,who have some enmitywith
him.
(v)AtmaPrakashTripathi:
Hisnamehasbeenincludedduetoenmity.Hehas notdoneany
act,asalleged.
5
(vi)ChandraPrakashChaubey:
Hewas notpresent intheCourtRoomwhentheallegedincident
tookplace.
(vii)KalpNathSingh:
HehasactuallyworkedintheaforesaidCourtofAdditionalChief
JudicialMagistrateandnoincidenttookplaceinhispresenceand
at that time when the alleged incident took place, he was not
presentintheCourt.
(viii)ShivRajSingh:
He has gone to work in the Court and has not created any
disturbanceinCourtproceedings.
(ix)BrijKishorSingh:
HehasgoneintheCourttoappearinamatterandhasnotcaused
anydisturbance intheCourtproceedings.Hehas alsonotused
any abusive language etc. as alleged and his name has been
includedonaccountofenmityofsomeotherAdvocates.
(x)PrabhakarRamPathak:
HewasnotpresentintheCourt.
(xi)SatyadeoPandey:
Onthedateofallegedincident,hewasatAllahabadandhisname
haswronglybeenmentioned.
11.
BeforethisCourt,thecontemnorsingeneralalsotenderedapology.
6
12.
Advocatesvideletterdated24.2.2015,ShriBrijKishorSingh,Advocate,
vide letter dated 3.3.2015, Shri Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Shri Om
PrakashRai,ShriOmPrakashPathak, ShriShivRajSingh,ShriKalp
Nath Singh and Shri Satyadeo Pandey, Advocates vide letter dated
9.3.2015filedtheiraffidavitsbeforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,thethen
ACJM,Sonbhadratenderingunconditionalapology.ShriChandraPrakash
Chaubhey,ShriOmPrakashRaiandShriPrabhakarRamPathakfiled
theirseparateaffidavitstothesameeffect.
13.
aforesaidactoftenderingapologyonthepartofcontemnorsbutfurther
pointedoutthatcontemnorshavenotcommittedtheseactsofcontempts
forthefirsttime,butearlieralsosimilaractwasdonebutJudicialOfficers
condoned their act and did not proceed further. The conduct of
contemnors isseriously contemptuous and condemnable. Hethereafter,
leftthemattertobeconsideredbythisCourt.
14.
AlltheentireaspectswereconsideredbyCourton9.4.2015.Having
7
Court,buthavealsolowereddowntheauthorityoftheCourtbesides
interfering in administration of justice, thus, all of you have
committedcriminal contempt defined underSection2(c)readwith
Sections10,14and15ofContemptofCourtsAct,1971(hereinafter
referredtoas"Act,1971")punishableunderSection12ofAct,1971."
15.
Thecontemnorswerealsogivenopportunitytofiletheirrepliesto
thechargelevelledagainstthem.
17.
Inreplytothechargeframedagainstcontemnors,replieshavebeen
filedbyMahendraPrasadShukla,(contemnorno.1),OmPrakashPathak
(contemnorno.3), SheshNarayanDixit(contemnorno.4),ShriKalpNath
Singh (contemnor no.7), Shiv Raj Singh (contemnor no.8), Brij Kishor
Singh(contemnorno.9),SatyadeoPandey(contemnorno.11).
18.
ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyS/ShriAlok
ShriV.P.Srivastava,learnedSeniorAdvocateassistedbyShriAjay
ShankarPathak,Advocatehasappearedonbehalfofcontemnorsno.1,3
and11i.e.MahendraPrasadShukla,OmPrakashPathakandSatyadeo
8
Pandey,respectively.
20.
ShriVinodKumarRai,Advocatehasputinappearanceonbehalfof
OmPrakashRai(contemnorno.2).ShriRudraKantMishra,Advocatehas
putin appearance on behalf of contemnor nos. 6 and 10 i.e. Chandra
PrakashChaubheyandPrabhakarRamPathak.
21.
contemnornos.1,3and11statedthatthoughtheaforesaidcontemnors
havefiledtheirrepliestothechargebuttheyarenotcontestingthematter
and surrendering themselves to the court, admitting guilt, and seeks
mercy.
22.
However,ShriV.C.Mishra,learnedSeniorAdvocate,hasadvanced
ShriV.C.Mishra,contendedthatReferenceLetterwasmadebythe
thenACJM,Sonbhadradisclosingonlythreenamesi.e.contemnornos.1,
2and3,andtherefore,noproceedingsagainstanyothercontemnorsis
admissible under law as the investigation directed by this Court, to be
made by District Judge, to find out names of other 1520 advocates,
mentionedinReferenceLetter,andReportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,
Sonbhadra, identifying names of contemnors 4 to 11, is neither
contemplatedunderAct1971norRulesframedbyCourt,therefore,the
aforesaidreportandproceedingsinitiatedonthebasisthereof,arewholly
illegal. The investigation directed by this Court to be made by District
Judge, Sonbhadra and report submitted by learned District Judge is
whollyunauthorizedandillegal,hencenocontemptproceedingwouldlie
againstthoseadvocates,whowerenamedininquiryreportsubmittedby
District Judge. The said inquiry report as also subsequent proceeding
initiatedagainstcontemnornos.4to11,areillegalandlackjurisdiction.
24.
Coming on the merit of the matter, Shri V.C. Mishra urged that
9
namesofcontemnornos.4to11havebeengivenbyadvocates,whohave
rivalrytothesecontemnors.Mentioningnamesofcontemnors4to11,by
twoorthreeadvocatesbeforeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadra,wasonaccount
of animosity. They have been falsely implicated. There is no otherwise
evidencethatthesecontemnorswerepresentorcommittedanyillegalact
etc.whichmaycomewithintheambitofthetermcriminalcontemptas
defined under Section 2 (c) of Act, 1971. He further contended that
statement of advocates taken note by District Judge, Sonbhadra in his
report,iswhollyhearsayandcannotbereliedsincecontemnorshavenot
been given any opportunity to cross examine those advocates, who
deposedanddisclosednamesofcontemnors.Hefurthercontendedthat
contemnorsincomplianceofthisCourt'sorderdated19.2.2015,tendered
unconditionalapologybeforePresidingOfficer,whomade areferenceto
thisCourtandhehasacceptedthesame,thereforeproceedingsareliable
tobedroppedagainstallthecontemnors.
25.
ShriSudhirMehrotra,learnedSpecialCounselnominatedbythis
Courttoassist,however,submittedthatReferenceLetterdated15.4.2013
aswellasinquiryreportsubmittedbyDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraareself
speaking, clearly showing highly derogatory conduct of contemnors
disturbing court proceedings, which clearly amount to criminal
contempt.ThePresidingOfficerhasalsoremindedthatcontemnorshave
not committed these acts for the first time but repeatedly. He also
submittedthatpowerofthisCourttopunishforcontempt,isnotconfined
toReferenceletterreceivedfromsubordinatecourtbutthecourtcanhave
informationsubsequentlyorotherwisealso,eitherfromsubordinatecourt
or on its own or under order of this Court. He submitted that the
Referencelettermadebysubordinatecourtisnottobereadasaplaint.
The term 'Reference' under Section 15 of Act, 1971 is nothing but an
information communicated by subordinate court to this Court, since
ultimate power for punishing contemnors for committing contempt of
10
subordinatecourtvestsinthisCourt.TheauthorityofthisCourtisnot
confinedtotheletterofreference.The'reference'isnotdefinedintheAct
1971.Itsimplyconstitutesaninformationreceivedfromsubordinatecourt.
In a given case, after initial information, the court may require some
further information, which may also come from subordinate court or
otherwiseandallthatinformationwillsatisfytheterm'Reference'.
26.
Wehaveheardlearnedcounselforpartiesasalsorelevantstatutory
provisionsandexpositionoflawlaiddownundervariousauthoritiesof
thisCourtaswellasvariousothercourtsandApexCourt.
28.
Herethecontemnorsthough11,butareapparentlyintwosets.First
setincludescontemnors1to3andsecondsetincludescontemnors4to
11i.e.Therefore,wefinditappropriatetodiscussthematteroftwosetsof
contemnorsseparately.Firstofallweproposestodiscussfactualaspects,
andthereafter,thelegalsubmissionsinvolvingboththesets.
29.
affidavitswornon6.5.2015isthat,heisanadvocatepractisinginDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra,has21yearslengthofpractiseandhisenrollmentwith
BarCouncilofU.P.isof1994.Heearlierfiledanaffidavitdated9.12.2013
11
tenderingunconditionalapology.On9.2.2015,whenmatterwastakenup,
hesaidthatheisnotcontestingproceedingsonmerit andistendering
unconditional apology. The Court then permitted him to tender such
apologybeforecourtbelowandincompliancethereof,hefiledapologyvide
affidavitdated9.3.2015beforeShriAmitKumarPrajapati,nowpostedas
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muzaffar Nagar at Kairana and tendered
apology.Coming onmerit,hesaidthatKalpNathSingh(contemnor7)
lodgedFirstInformationReportdated20.3.2013,registeredasCaseCrime
No.164/2013underSection406and420I.P.C.,P.S.Pannuganj,District
SonbhadraagainstsixpersonsincludingoneJagJeevanSingh,Advocate,
whohasbeennamedasawitnessinreferencelettersentbycourtbelow.
Copy of report is Annexure No.1 to theAffidavit. Some of the accused,
namely,JagjeevanSingh,Advocate,JangBahaduraliasBachchacameto
thiscourtinWritPetitionsNo.6087of2013and6086of2013forseeking
quashingofFirstInformationReport.Thewritpetitionsweredisposedof
videordersdated10.4.2013andbothordersaresimilar.Oneoftheorder
dated10.4.2013readsasunder:
HeardthelearnedcounselforthepetitionerandthelearnedA.G.A.
Thispetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerwithaprayertoquash
theF.I.R.ofcasecrimeno.164of2013,undersections420,406IPC,
P.S.Pannuganj,DistrictSonbhadra.
From the perusal of the F.I.R it appears that on the basis of
allegationmadethereintheprimafaciecognizableoffenceismade
out.ThereisnoscopeofinterferingintheF.I.RTherefore,theprayer
forquashingtheF.I.Risrefused.
However,consideringthefacts,itisdirectedthat incasepetitioner
appearsbeforethecourtconcernedwithin30daysfromtodayand
applies for bail, the same shall be heard and disposed of
expeditiouslyifpossibleonthesamedaybythecourtsbelow.
Withthisdirection,thispetitionisfinallydisposedof.
31.
(emphasisadded)
JudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraand12.4.2013wasthedatefixed.Since
12
courtwasvacant,thecasewastakenupinthecourtofACJM,ShriAmit
KumarPrajapation12.4.2013,whencourtgrantedinterimbailtooneof
the accused, Sat Pal alias Bablu. Despite knowledge of order dated
10.4.2013 passed by this Court, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, the then
ACJM, Sonbhadra, in league and collusion with Jagjeevan Singh,
Advocate,grantedinterimbailtoanotheraccusedSatpalaliasBablu on
12.4.2013.Sincetheaforesaidcriminalcaserelatestonumberoffarmers
whowerecheatedbyaccusedpersons,theyraisedtheirvoice.Withthe
incidentasallegedinreferencelettersentbythenACJM,thecontemnor1
hasnoconcern.However,contemnor1,appearingonbehalfofinformant
was opposing bail application and had filed Vakalatname on 12.4.2013
beforetheconcernedACJM.Subsequently,bailapplicationwasrejectedby
CJM on 17.4.2013. Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate was expelled from
membershipofSonbhadraBarAssociationvideresolutiondated7.2.2012.
On 11.4.2013, there was an emergency meeting of Sonbhadra Bar
Associationinwhichadecisionwastakenforabstainingjudicialworkon
12.4.2013onaccountofdissimilarityinholidaysinCivilCourtandState
GovernmentOfficesandalsoforfrequentpowercuts.Theincident,took
placeon12.4.2013,betweencomplainantandaccusedpersons,andnot
judicialofficerandcontemnor1.Thedayofincident, i.e.12.4.2013,was
lastworkingdayofthethenACJM,ShriAmitKumarPrajapatiinDistrict
Court,Sonbhadra.Regardingthesaidincident,anewswaspublishedin
localHindiNewspaper'Hindustan'VaranasiEditiondated13.4.2013.The
Sonbhadra Bar Association, Sonbhadra also passed a resolution on
16.4.2013 against Shri Jagjeevan Singh, Advocate as well as the then
ACJM, Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, against their conduct. The copy of
resolution has already been placed on record as Annexure No.9 to the
Affidavit,whichisreproducedasunder:
^^vkt fnukad 16-04-13 dh cSBd esa dfFkr fM~fLV~d ckj ,'kks0 lksuHknz ds
inkf/kdkjh Jh txthou flag ,M0 ds v'kksHkuh; vkpj.k ,oa ,-lh-ts-,e- lksuHknz
13
Inthemeetingheldonthis16.04.2013,theundignifiedconductof
ShriJagjivanSinghAdvocate,socalledofficebeareroftheDistrict
Bar Association, Sonbhadra, as also the ways of discharge of
judicial work by Shri Amat Prajapati, ACJM, Sonbhadra was
discussedfollowingwhichresolutionswerepassedbymajorityas
under:
1.Inthecourtpremises,actsnotbefittingtheconductofadvocates
havecontinuedtobedoneeverynowandthenbyShriJagjivan
Singh, so called office bearer of the District Bar Association,
Sonbhadraandhisfellowadvocatesinthenameoftheassociation;
and efforts have continuously been done by the said advocates
throughthesocalledassociationtomanagethejudicialprocessby
influencing some judicial officers as well, which vitiates the
atmosphere of the court premises. Only in view of Shri Singh's
doings,hehasbeenexpelledfromtheprimarymembershipofthe
14
Bar by the previous working committee and the same has been
conveyedtotheBarCouncilofUttarPradesh.Withoneaccord,his
workandconductandalsothatoftheconcernedjudicialofficeris
condemnedanditisdecidedthattheactofShriJagjivanSingh,
who after getting the information regarding transfer of ACJM
Sonbhadra Amat Prajapati, used abusive language and issued
threats in the court premises before the presiding officer on
12.04.2013againsttheresolutionpassedbytheBar,didnotbefit
the conduct of an advocate and the acquiescence of even the
presidingofficerinthematterraisesdoubts.
2.Theaforesaidactisvehementlycondemnedanditisdecidedas
well that talks in the aforesaid context be held with the District
Judge,thusapprisinghimaboutthesaidactivitiesandrequesting
forproperactionagainsttheconcernedpersons.
(EnglishtranslationbyCourt)
32.
He(contemnor1)hasfurthersaidthatthereferencehasbeenmade
^^vkt fnukad 20-02-13 dks iwoZ fu/kkZfjr lwpuk ds vuqlkj cSBd vke lnu dh
lEiUu gqbZ ftlesa fu/kkZFjr fcUnqvksa ij ppkZ ds mijkUr cgqer ds vk/kkj ij
fuEufyf[kr izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;kA
1- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknZ ds vkns'k fnukad 16-01-13 ftls tuin U;k;k/kh'k lksuHknz }
kjk fnukad 18-01-13 dks vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZ vO;ogkfjd gS] mls rRdky
izHkko ls okil fy;k tk;A
2- lh0ts0,e0 lksuHknz ds lsok dky dh tuin esa vof/k iw.kZ gks jgh gS] rFkk mudk
LFkkukUrj.k bl o"kZ gksuk gS] ftls :dokus dk vkosnu muds }kjk fd;k x;k gS]
15
16
33.
17
thesamematter.ThoughhehasstatedthatShriMahendraPrasadShukla
(contemnor no1). was counsel for complainant in the said case but
regarding his own role and presence, he has not said, anything, very
specifically.However,inpara57,contemnor3hassaidthatcontemnor1is
practisingandjuniortohim,therefore,onlywithamalafideintentionand
toharass,contemnor3hasfalselybeenmentionedinreferencebycourt
below.
35.
Contemnors,atthetimeofargument,didnotadvanceanyargumenton
meritsandstatedthatcontemnors,whomheisrepresenting,surrender
beforethecourtandseekmercy.
36.
Fromthefactsdisclosedabove,wehavenodoubtthattherewasa
18
Courtdated10.4.2013,wasactuallycommunicatedbyanyoftheparties
ortobecourtbelow.
37.
hasbeenreliedbycontemnors1and3alsomakeitclearthatadvocates
wereannoyedofthefactthatoverlookingtheirresolution,theCourthad
actually functioned and discharged judicial work. It appears that
Advocatesandparticularlycontemnors1and3,wereunderimpression
thatwhateverresolutiontheypass,sittinginBarAssociation,thecourts
are bound to obey the same, ignoring the fact that a resolution of
abstentionofjudicialworkisperseillegalandamountstoanintentional
actofcriminalcontemptonthepartoftheBody,orperson(s)whopass
such resolution, and liable for punishment under Act, 1971. Time and
again,isthelastmorethantwodecades,Courtshaverepeatedlyheldthat
strikeof lawyers, abstaining from judicial workis not perse illegal but
amountstoobstructioninfunctioningofcourtsoflawandobstructionin
judicialfunction,fallingwithintheambitofcriminalcontemptdefined
underSection2(c)ofAct,1971.
38.
Thesuggestionthatadvocateswereonstrikedoesnotprovideany
justificationformakingsuchallegations,inasmuchas,repeatedly,Apex
CourtaswellasthisCourthaveheldthatacallofstrikebyadvocates
exceptofarareoccasion,isperseillegal.Acall,whichhastheeffectof
paralysing judicial function ex facie, in our view, amounts to a direct
interferenceintheadministrationofjusticeandisa'criminalcontempt'
underSection2(c)oftheAct,1971.ThestrikebyAdvocatesdisturbingthe
CourtproceedingshasbeenheldillegalbytheCourtinCommonCause
(ARegisteredSociety)vs.UnionofIndiaandOthers(1995)5SCC
511, Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Bar Council of
India(1995)1SCC732,K.JohnKoshyvs.Dr.TarkeshwarPrasad
Shaw(1998)8SCC624,MahavirPrasadSinghvs.JacksAviation
19
PrivateLtd.(1999)1SCC37andExCaptainHarishUppalvs.Union
ofIndia(2003)2SCC45.TheauthoritiesofApexCourtinabovethese
cases,supportandlaydowntheaboveexpositionoflaw.
39.
AIR1970SC2015,ithasbeenheldthatimputationofmalafides,biasor
prejudice, ridiculing the efficiency of Judges, are always considered to
20
meanscandalizingthecourts.Officialcapacityinthisregardcannotbe
differentiated into judicial and administrative capacities. Both are
interlinked.VilificatorycriticismofaJudgefunctioningasaJudge,evenin
purelyadministrativeornonadjudicatorymatters,amountstocontempt
of court if such a criticism substantially affects the 'administration of
justice' and lowers the authority or dignity of the court, or creates a
distrustinthepublicmindastothecapacityoftheJudgestometeout
evenhandedjustice.
41.
ContemnorNo.1wasadmittedlypresentinCourt.Hewasshouting
anddisturbingincourt'sfunctionasisevidentfromreplygivenbyhim.
HehasreferredtotheresolutionofBarAssociationthatdespitedecision
ofabstinencefromjudicialwork,courtofACJMwasactuallyfunctioning
and he passed judicial orders also in some cases. The affidavit of
contemnor1filedbeforethisCourt, clearlyshowsthatcontemnorno.1
representingapartyinbailapplicationandopposingbail,wasinterested
inpostponementofmatterwithoutanyorderbuthecouldnotsucceed.He
hasnotbeenabletorestrainhimtohurlscurrilouslanguageonPresiding
Officerinrespectofjudicialorderpassedbyhim,grantinginterimbail,
statingthatsaidorderwaspassedinleagueandcollusionwithaccused
persons.Contemnorno.3hasalsousedsamelanguage,sworninitsreply
affidavit.Contemnorno.3hasnotswornthathewasnotpresentincourt
butpresentelsewhere.Contemnor2hasnotsubmittedanyreplytothe
chargelevelledagainsthim.Evenotherwisenoneofthecontemnors1to3
haveactuallycontestedatthetimeofhearing.BeforethisCourttoshow
that such acts have not been committed by them or were actually not
committedbythem.
42.
contemnors1,2and3,proved.
43.
Nowweproposestocometothecaseofcontemnors4to11.The
namesofthesecontemnorshavenotbeendisclosedinReferenceLetter
21
dated15.4.2013sentbyShriAmitKumarPrajapat.Theirnameshavebeen
disclosed through report submitted by District Judge, Sonbhadra
pursuanttoinquiryconducted,videCourt'sorderdated30.9.2013.
44.
Section 15 (2) of Act, 1971, the Court can take cognizance of only the
'reference' made by subordinate court and not to any subsequent
proceedings. There is no provision, which permits this court to direct
subordinatecourttomakesomeinquirytofindoutnamesofpersons,who
havecommittedanactof'criminalcontempt'andthentoproceedagainst
them. According to learned Senior Counsel this procedure adopted by
courtiswithoutanyauthorityoflawhavingnosanction,andtherefore,is
anullity.
45.
SeniorCounsel,thatpowertopunishforcriminalcontemptofsubordinate
courtvestsonlyunderSection15(2)ofAct,1971andbeyondthatthis
courtpossessesnootherwisepowertoproceedevenifthereisanactor
omissiononthepartofoneortheotherAdvocate(s),constituting'criminal
contempt' and this information has been received by court, not on a
referencemadebysubordinatecourtoronamotionmadebyAdvocate
General,butotherwise.
46.
Thisaspecthasbeenconsideredin S.K.Sarkar,Member,Board
22
ofcourtssubordinatetoitasithasandexercisesinrespectofcontempts,
itself. AmbitofprocedureforthecourtregardingSection15(2)actually
specifiesoneofthemodeofproceduresothatfrivolouscasesofcriminal
maynotfloodacourtofrecord.Twomodesareprescribedinsubsection2
ofSection15whereaninformationwillcometocourtfromauthenticated
bodyorifoninitialscrutiny,whichwillhavetheleastchancesonbringing
afrivolousmatterbeforethecourt.Inthecaseof S.K.Sarkar(supra),
the Supreme Court clearly opined that if High Court is prima facie
satisfiedthattheinformationreceived by it regarding commission of
contempt of a subordinate court is not frivolous, and the contempt
allegedisnotmerelytechnicalortrivial,itmay,initsdiscretion,actsuo
motu and commence proceedings against the contemner. However, this
modeoftakingsuomotucognizanceofcontemptofasubordinatecourt
should beresortedto sparinglywhere thecontemptconcernedisofa
graveandseriousnature.
47.
Inthepresentcase,Courthasnotproceededonitsownbutbasic
23
took place. However, after framing of charge, defencetaken bydifferent
contemnorsintheirreply,isasunder:
Contemnor5(AtmaPrakashTripathi):
48.
ItissaidthatheisasenioradvocateinDistrictBarAssociation,
Sonbhadraandhasneverbeenchargedforcommittingcontempt.Hehad
beenPresidentofDistrictBarAssociation,Sonbhadraforsixyears.His
name hasbeendisclosedbyanadvocatehaving rivalry i.e. Jag Jeevan
Singh,Advocate,andTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt.With
regardtoanimositywithJagJeevanSingh,hesaidthathewasPresident
whenJagJeevanSingh,AdvocatewasexpelledfrommembershipofBar
Association.
49.
WithregardtoTarkeshwarTiwri,Clerk(Criminal)ofCourt,itissaid
thatheisresidinginsamevillagewherecontemnor5isresidingandsome
complainthasbeenmadebycontemnorAtmaPrakashTripathiagainst
Tarkeshawr Tiwari before District Magistrate as well as Nagar Palika
Parishad,Sonbhadracausinganimosityagainsthim.
50.
Intheentireaffidavitofcontemnor5,swornon26.4.2015,wedonot
findthathehasdeniedthechargestatingthathewasnotpresentincourt
roomanddidnotparticipateinactivitiesdisturbingcourtfunctionetc.In
para15,headmitstohavesubmittedunconditionalapologybeforecourt
below. Moreover, in order to substantiate his defence that he was not
presentincourtorhasnotdoneanything,nothinghasbeenbroughton
recordexceptthatininitialletter/reference,hisnamewasnotdisclosed.
51.
SofarascomplaintmadeagainstTarkeshwarTiwari,Clerk(Criminal)
ofCourtisconcerned,thisCourtfindsaletterdated12.8.2013,submitted
by District Magistrate signed by five persons i.e. Shesh Narayan Dixit,
AtmaPrakashTripathi,KamleshPandey,VinodKumarShukla,Satyadeo
Pandeyetc.Fromthatletter,byitself,itcannotbesaidthatanemployeeof
courtcanmakeafalsestatementagainstcontemnor5.Itisnotindispute
24
thatTarkeshwarTiwari,wasanAssistantClerk(Criminal)postedincourt
ofACJM,SonbhadraonrelevantdateandwaspresentinCourt,hehad
theoccasiontowitnessincidentandrecognizethepersons,whocaused
theincidentinsubordinatecourt.
Contemnor11SatyadeoPandey:
52.
Anotheraffidavitinreplytochargehasbeenfiledbycontemnor11
SatyadeoPandey.Hisreplyisalmostsimilartothatofcontemnors1to3.
Hehasalsosaidinpara15thatACJMpassedanorderofinterimbailin
league and collusion with one Jag Jeevan Singh, Advocate, who was
pursuingbailofSayaPalaliasBablu.Itisnothiscasethathewasnotin
court when incident took place but elsewhere. A bare denial that no
incidenttookplace,wouldnothelpcontemnor11inanymanner.Thereis
nothingtosubstantiateit.Itisatleastevidentfromaffidavitsubmittedby
contemnor 11, that a serious disturbance was caused in the Court of
ACJMsincehewasdischargingjudicialfunctionignoringresolutionofBar
Association of abstention of advocates from judicial work. Conduct of
contemnor11inscandalizingthecourtalsoandfurtherstandsreaffirmed
bywhathehassaidinpara15ofaffidavitsubmittedinreplytocharge.
53.
clearlyjustifyinferencetobedrawnbyCourt,againstthem.
54.
We,therefore,rejectsubmissionoflearnedSeniorCounsel,ShriV.C.
MishraregardinghisobjectiontoprocedurefollowedbyCourtbyobtaining
report from District Judge in respect of other advocates, who have
obstructed court's functioning on 12.4.2013, and hold charge levelled
againstcontemnors4to11proved.
55.
Oflate,wefindadeepincreasingtendencyofadvocatesinmaking
25
presenceofpublicatlarge,whichincludeslitigants,clerksandothers,in
CourtsorinsidetheCourtcampus.Ifanorderhasnotbeenpassedbya
JudicialOfficertothelikingofanadvocate,remedylieselsewherebutno
onecanhavelibertytocreateasituation/anuglyscene,byraisingabusive
slogansagainstofficer(s)aswellastheCourt.Ifthiswouldnothavethe
effectofloweringauthorityandmajestyoftheCourt,whatelsecanbe.
56.
WhenthereisadeliberateattempttoscandalizeajudicialOfficerof
subordinateCourt,itisboundtoshakeconfidenceoflitigatingpublicin
thesystemandhastobetackledstrictly.Thedamageiscausednotonlyto
thereputationofconcernedJudge,but,alsotothefairnameofjudiciary.
Veiledthreats,abrasivebehaviour,useofdisrespectfullanguage,and,at
times, blatant condemnatory attacks, like the present one, are often
designedly employed with a view to tame a Judge into submission to
secure a desired order. The foundation of our system is based on the
independenceandimpartialityofthemenhavingresponsibilitytoimpart
justicei.e.JudicialOfficers.Iftheirconfidence,impartialityandreputation
isshaken,itisboundtoaffecttheveryindependenceofjudiciary.Any
person,ifallowedtomakedisparagingandderogatoryremarksagainsta
JudicialOfficer,withimpunity,isboundtoresultinbreakingdownthe
majestyofjustice.
57.
AnAdvocate'sdutyisasimportantasthatofaJudge.Hehasa
26
sincerityandrespect.Inallprofessionalfunctions,anAdvocateshouldbe
diligentandhisconductshouldalsobediligent.Heshouldconformtothe
requirementsoflaw.Heplaysavitalroleinpreservationofsocietyand
justicesystem.Heisunderanobligationtoupholdtheruleoflaw.He
mustensurethatthepublicjusticesystemisenabledtofunctionatitsfull
potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as a
moralagent.Thischaracter,hecannotshakeoff,byanyothercharacter
on professional character. He derives from the belief that he shares
sentiment of all mankind. This influence of his morality is one of his
possession,which,likeallhispossession,heisboundtouseformoral
ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court.
Advocacyisarespectablenobleprofessionontheprinciples.AnAdvocate
owesdutynotonlytohisclient,buttotheCourt,tothesocietyand,not
theleast,tohisprofession.
59.
Wedonotintendtolaydownanycodeofconductfortheclassofthe
27
withthesystemofjustice,andifhascroppedup,deservestobenippedat
earliest,else,itmayspreadsitstentaclestocoverothersandthatwould
beadoomsdayfortheveryinstitution.
60.
judges.InSmt.MunniDeviandothersVs.StateofU.P.andothers,
2013(2)AWC1546thisCourtinpara10,hassaid:
"10.Bethatasitmay,sofarasthepresentcaseisconcerned,
suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have
imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to
exercisecontroloversubordinatejudiciary.Thiscontrolisboth
ways.NoaberrationshallbeallowedtoentertheSubordinate
Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously
Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or
threatenedtoworkunderoutsidepressureofanyone,whether
individualoragroup,soastoformathreattoobjectiveand
independentfunctioningofSubordinateJudiciary."
61.
TheJudicialOfficer/Judgeshadnoplatformtostandandclarifythe
circumstancesinwhichtheorderhasbeenpassedbythem.Theyhaveno
platformtodefendthemselves.Thestrengthofjudiciarycomesfromthe
strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated
flimsy,imaginary,fancifulallegationsbeallowedtobemadebyaparty,
whodidnotfindanorderinitsfavour,itwilldemolishtheveryfoundation
ofthesystemofjustice.EveryorderpassedbytheCourtwillbeinfavour
of one of the party and against another. The loosing party cannot be
28
allowed to challenge the very conduct/integrity of Judicial Officer in
passingtheorderandthattoowithoutanymaterialtosupportsuchan
allegation.Ifweallowsuchatrendtoremainunnoticed,orcondonethe
same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such
tendencyamongstotherbuttheresultantsituationmaycameaserious
blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the
founding pillar of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all
legalandreasonablemeans.
63.
Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactsthatthecharge
court,causingobstructioninjudicialfunctionandattempttopreventthe
Courtfromdischargingitsjudicialfunction,isaseriousactofcriminal
contempt.Oflate,thecourtonadministrativeside,isinformedthatvery
frequently advocates are abstaining from judicial function, by taking
recoursetoalllegalandillegalmeansandmeasurestopreventjudicial
officersfromdischargingtheirjudicialfunctions.Inmostofthecases,for
oneorotherreasons,subordinatecourtsrefrainfrommakingReferenceto
this Court, in hope of maintaining cordial administrative relation &
atmospherebut that isnothappening. Theadvocateshave taken, asa
matterofgrant,thattheycanpreventcourtfromfunctioning,onmere
asking, and nothing will happen against them. The audacity of Bar
Association in passing resolutions condemning Presiding Officer (s) of
Court,whofunctiondespiteresolutionofBarAssociationisWritLarge.
Regardingobstructioninjudicialwork,theincidentshowstheextentto
which Body of advocates can go to intimidate judicial officer, if he/she
works ignoring resolution of advocate's Body. In fact this act of Bar
29
Associationisalsonothingbutaserious'criminalcontempt'butsincethat
matterisnotbeforeus,therefore,wearenottakingactionagainstit.
65.
Intheabovebackgroundandconsideringthefactthatthechargeis
uponallcontemnorsandafineofRs.2000/.Incaseofnonpaymentof
fine,theyshallundergosimpleimprisonmentforafurtherperiodoftwo
months.
67.
Besidesabove,inordertomaintaindisciplineandavoidnuisancein
theDistrictSonbhadra,wealsodirectthatcontemnorsshallnotenterthe
premisesofDistrictJudgeship,Sonbhadraforaperiodofsixmonths.The
aforesaidperiodofrestrictionshallcommencewitheffectfrom10th July,
2015.
68.
Besides,theconductofallcontemnorsshallremainunderconstant
Sofarasamountoffineisconcerned,contemnorsmaydepositthe
sameeitherinthisCourtorwiththeDistrictJudge,Sonbhadraorwith
theChiefJudicialMagistrate,Sonbhadraby18.7.2015..
70.
Contemptapplicationisdisposedofinthemannerasabove.
OrderDate:2.7.2015
Ajeet
30
CourtNo.34
Case:CONTEMPTAPPLICATION(CRIMINAL)No.12of2013
Applicant:InRe
OppositeParty:SriMahendraPrasadShuklaAdvocate&Others
CounselforApplicant:A.G.A.,SudhirMehrotra
CounselforOppositeParty:AjaiShankarPathak,Dr.V.K.Rai,M.K.
Singh,PrashantPandey,RudraKantMishra,S.P.Srivastava,VivekMishra
Hon'bleSudhirAgarwal,J.
Hon'bleDineshGupta,J.
1.
imposedbythisCourtvidejudgementofdatebesuspendedtoenablethem
toavailstatutoryremedyofappealunderSection19ofContemptofCourts
Act,1971(hereinafterreferredtoas"Act,1971")beforethesuperiorcourt.
2.
Inthecircumstances,wesuspendthesentenceforaperiodof60days
toenablethemtoavailremedyofappeal.Incase,theappealisnotfiledorif
filedbutnootherwiseorderispassedintheappeal,thecontemnersshall
surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra, who would
immediatelytakeappropriatestepsforservingoutsentencebycontemnors
asdirectedinthejudgementofdatepassedinthiscontemptapplication.
OrderDate:2.7.2015
Ajeet