HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 13.5.2015 Delivered on 10.7.2015 Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 20 of 2008 Applicant :- In Re: (Sri. S.P.Sharma C.J.M. Kushinagar) Opposite Party :- Bhagwati Sharma Advocate Kushinagar Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.B.P. Srivastava,Dheeraj Srivastva And Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 17 of 2011 Applicant :- In Re: Opposite Party :- Sri Bhagwati Sharma Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra(A.C.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.B.P.Srivastava,M.D.Mishra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.)
1. A reference was made by Sri Surya Prakash Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna on 18.09.2008 forwarded by the then District Judge, Kushinagar vide letter dated 23.8.2008 informing this Court regarding activities of Sri Bhagwati Sharma, Advocate, in Civil Court, Kushinagar which constituted "Criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971(hereinafter referred to as "Act 1971"). The matter was examined by this Court and it was registered as Criminal Contempt Application No.20 of 2008. In the Reference it is stated that on 18.8.2008 when Court was busy in criminal case no.713 of 2007, Smt. Madhubala Pandey Vs. Abhishek Kumar, the Contemnor, appearing for the applicant in the said case dubbed the Court as 'incompetent'. During course of argument, the contemnor uttered the words "COURT INCOMPETENT HAI".
2. Likewise in another Criminal Misc. case No.136 of 2008, Smt. Sobha Kushwaha Vs. Santosh Kushwaha when the matter was taken up for hearing, the contemnor appearing for Smt. Sobha Kushwaha, without arguing the case on merits, stated in high pitch tone in open Court that he repeats the same arguments. The actual words uttered by contemnor were "MERI YAHI BAHAS IS PATRAVALI MAIN BHI HAI"
3. This Court prima facie found the aforesaid act of contemnor constituting "criminal contempt" and, on 7.1.2009 issued notice as to why he be not proceeded against for committing 'criminal contempt' under the provisions of Act 1971.
4. Contemnor put in appearance on 17.12.2009. His counsel stated before the Court that framing of charges be dispensed with and contemnor is repentant for committing contempt of Court and apologizes with the assurance not to repeat the same again. The Court accordingly proceeded and did not frame any formal charge against him. He was represented by senior counsel Sri B.B.P. Srivastava who stated before the Court that he is not arguing the matter on merits and pray for mercy and compassion of Court for accepting unconditional and unqualified apology which the contemnor has tendered and is praying for discharge. He states that contemnor is fairly a senior counsel having more than 25 years of practice and had never departed from the path of rectitude and sobriety or of a conduct of his stature.
5. However, subsequently, the Court found from record that in counter affidavit, he has said that he reiterated language used by police personnel before his client and did not add any word of his own or subtract any word therefrom and these words were actually uttered by him in good faith, therefore, they did not constitute a criminal contempt. He never intended to scandlize the Court by saying "incompetent" and never intended to lower down its authority. Looking to the conduct of contemnor as reflected from his stand taken in counter affidavit, Court found that here is a case where contemnor has actually lowered down authority of Court by calling it 'incompetent' and has committed a 'criminal contempt'. The Court in its order dated 5.2.2010 further noticed that earlier also a Criminal Contempt Petition No.16 of 2006 had proceeded against this very Contemnor wherein Court accepted his apology and discharged him from similar allegation. Operative part of order dated 25.9.2006 passed in criminal contempt petition No.16 of 2006 quoted therein reads as under:
"Since the contemnors have tendered their unconditional apology and they are the pactising advocates in the civil court, Kushinagar in the interest of justice and equity both, we find it proper to direct them to put in their appearance before the present District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar within two weeks and furnish their individual affidavits tendering apology as made before this Court. The court concerned shall maintain a record in this regard and submit a report thereon on or before Ist Nov 2006."
6. Having said so and looking to the entire matter, this Court held that contemnor has committed manifestly a 'criminal contempt' by uttering the words as aforesaid. The Court said :
Be that as it may, it would crystallize that the contemnor has not denied the charge against him and at no point of time, he refuted the allegations or justified his conduct. Be that as it may, the conduct of the contemnor in excoriating the court as incompetent in full view of the litigant public and other lawyers, it is discernible, was one tantamounting to scandalizing the court and lowering the image of the court in the estimation of the public and to impair the administration of justice which in turn, tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute inasmuch as the court was compelled to take notice of the conduct which was noted down in the order and subsequently forwarded the matter to the District Judge for onward transmission to the High Court by way of reference and by this reckoning, the working of the court was obstructed for sometime. The contemnor is a lawyer having practice spanning 25 years as averred by him in the affidavit and a lawyer of this standing cannot be deemed to be inexperienced or novice in the profession who can claim pardon on account of his inexperience or being new entrant. It is also worthy of mention that no system of justice can tolerate such unbridled licence on the part of a person particular a lawyer, to permit himself the liberty of undermining the prestige of the court by picking quarrel with a litigant and then slapping him in the face. Justice is a most precious concern of mankind. Its achievement through judicial institutions and processes is sensitive and fragile. The members of the bar must not forget their duties to the court nor should they disregard propriety. Indignation or provocation however righteous may be should not be susceptible to the perception that it has become riotous indignation.
In the facts and circumstances, he is held guilty of having committed contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Court Act.
In the above conspectus, the reference made to this Court is allowed and the contemnors are held guilty of criminal contempt."
7. However, while considering question of punishment the court observed that looking to the statement made by learned Senior Counsel, it is not proposing to award any sentence at present, and deferred the matter so as to watch the conduct and behaviour of contemnor for a period of one year. Operative part of the order dated 5.2.2010 reads as under:
"As a result of foregoing discussion, we propose not to award the sentence at present and defer it as the Court would like to watch the conduct and behaviour for a period of one year from today. The District Judge Kushinagar shall monitor the conduct for a period of one year. In case, the contemnor repeats any act which tantamount to contempt of Court or undermining the judiciary, he will be called upon to appear in Court to receive the sentence. But if the contemnor maintains orderly, good and disciplined behaviour and does not indulge himself in the repetition of such acts within the stipulated period, then the rule shall stand discharged on the expiry of the period.
It is ordered accordingly."
8. Contemnor, therefore, was kept under observation for the purpose of sentence for a period of one year from the date of the order i.e. till 4.2.2011.
9. Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C.-1st, Kushinagar at Padrauna in a letter dated 19.01.2011, addressed to Registrar General of this Court, through District Judge, Kushinagar at Padrauna, in reference to the activities of contemnor Sri Bhagwati Sharma in the last one year which were in breach of Court's judgment dated 5.2.2010 in Criminal Contempt Application no.20 of 2008, said that during one year, contemnor, Sri Bhagwati Sharma kept on pressurising judicial officers, Kushinagar at Padrauna in Session Trial No.66 of 2000, State Vs. Paras. Presiding Officer, though mentioned these facts in order sheet but did not refer the matter since Sri Bhagwati Sharma, contemnor was President of Bar Association and Presiding Officer did not intend to disturb harmony between Bar and Bench. In the second half in November 2010, Sri Bhagwati Sharma in his Presidentship got a resolution passed to proceed on strike against all Judicial Officers of District Headquarters, Kushinagar at Padrauna which is still going on though strike by Advocates disturbing Court proceedings has been held illegal in Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (1995) 5 SCC 511;Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice Vs. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732; K.John Koshy Vs. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624; Mahavir Prasad Singh Vs. Jacks Aviation Private Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37; Ex-Captain Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India (2003)2 SCC 45. It is also illegal in view of Court's circular letter no.35/III- B- 36/ Admin-G dated 1.10.2004. He also said that Sri Sharma during the aforesaid period of strike, shouted defamatory slogans against entire judicial system and also prevented clients and parties from appearing in Court, by terrorising them. The contemnor, along with his companions scolded two witnesses in the Court-room of Additional District Judge/FTC-III, Sri Brij Lal Chaurasia on 27.11.2010 and beat them mercilessly. Besides, Sri Bhagwati Sharma, is accused in Session Trial No.505/2005 State Vs. Gulab under Section 323,504,506,352,353 I.P.C. and (3)1(10) SC/ST Act P.S. Kotawali Padrauna and S.T. No.53 of 2014 State Vs. Gulab under Section 323,504,506,352,353 I.P.C. and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act Padrauna. Activities of Sri Bhagwati Sharma during the period of one year had gone from worse to worst.
10. The aforesaid letter of Sri Piyush Verma was forwarded by District Judge, Padrauna vide endorsement dated 15.3.2011.
11. Sri Ashok Kumar, the then District Judge, Padrauna, also sent a letter dated 18.12.2010, to this Court, through Registrar General, reporting about illegal strike of Advocates at Kushinagar and requested for transfer of jurisdiction to some other Court. He pointed out that earlier on account of strike, slogan shouting and abusive activities of Advocates, contempt proceedings were drawn against 12 contemnors which included Sri Bhagwati Sharma. When notices were issued, the contemnors tendered apology which was accepted and contemnors were discharged. Again Sri Bhagwati Sharma was subjected to Criminal Contempt No.20 of 2008, in which vide order dated 5.2.2010, he was held guilty of criminal contempt. On the question of sentence, matter was deferred for a period of one year for keeping his conduct under watch. The District Judge said that due to illegal strike of Advocates, entire system has collapsed and a large number of accused in prison in petty offences, as also other litigants are suffering monetary, physical and other problems. Besides, the image of judiciary is being maligned openly.
12. Taking note of aforesaid informations, this Court on 15.10.2014 revived proceedings for pronuncement of sentence and issued bailable warrant against contemnor. This is how this Court is proceedings in criminal contempt no.20 of 2008.
13. In the mean-time, there is another matter i.e. criminal contempt- No.17 of 2011. This matter had arisen from the letter dated 19.1.2011 sent by Sri Piyush Verma, Additional Judge/ F.T.C.- I, Kushinagar at Padrauna stating that Sri Bhagwati Sharma who is also President of Advocates Association, has called an illegal strike and on account of his indecent behaviour and contemptuous slogan shouting, he has lowered down authority of the Court. He has also scolded two witnesses in the Court-room and beat them and these activities constitute "criminal contempt". This letter was received in Registry on 31.1.2011. Thereupon, this Court required District Judge Padrauna to submit a report in respect of incident mentioned by Sri Piyush Verma in his letter dated 19.1.2011 pursuant whereto Sri Ashok Kumar, District Kushinagar at Padrauna sent report dated 22.4.2011 mentioning following facts:
"Sri Bhawagati Sharma, Advocate was the President of District Civil Court Bar Association Kushinagar at Padrauna when a number of resolutions of strike/boycott against various courts during a period from 24.11.2010 to 23.01.2011 were passed.
During this period of strike/boycott Advocates under the Presidentship of Sri Bhawagati Sharma shouted slogans against the judicial system in abusive language and against the Judicial Officers of this judgeship. I had sent report to Hon'ble Court about these incidents on 18.12.2010 which is annexure No.3 of Sri Piyush Verma's reference.
During this period of strike/boycott two witnesses were scolded from the Court room of A.D.J./F.T.C.-III Kushinagar at Padrauna on 27.11.2010 and beaten mercilessly by Advocates and an FIR was lodged which is annexure No.4 of Sri Piyush Verma's reference. The purpose of these incidents was to prevent the witnesses and clients from appearing in the Court.
The incident in the reference dated 01.02.2010 (annexure No.2) reported by Sri Piyush Verma has not taken place in the period in which the conduct of Sri Bhawagati Sharma was to be monitored.
S.T. No.505/2005 State Vs. Gulab and S.T. No.53/2004 State Vs. Gulab in which Sri Bhawagati Sharma is an accused are not of the period in which the conduct of Sri Bhawagati Sharma was to be monitored.
14. The matter was examined on administrative side. From the conduct of Sri Bhagwati Sharma mentioned in the letter dated 19.1.2011, sent by Sri Piyush Verma, it was found that prima facie fresh acts of Sri Bhagwati Sharma constitute 'criminal contempt'. The Hon. Chief Justice approved it on 4.7.2011 to be placed before a Bench having determination of criminal contempt to proceed further. This matter than was registered separately as Criminal Contempt no.17 of 2011. On 30.10.2014 this Court having found activities of Sri Bhagwati Sharma, prima facie constituting 'criminal contempt', issued notice as to why he should not be punished for criminal contempt. The contemnor appeared and informed that earlier contempt application No.20 of 2008 is also pending against him in which he has been summoned by this Court. He requested for clubbing of both the matters. Both the matters were clubbed vide order dated 3.12.2014.
15. The contemnor filed his objections/reply separately in both the matters.
16. We though referred both the cases but would discuss these cases separately.
CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 20 of 2008
17. The explanation accompanied with the affidavit sworn on 12.5.2014 in respect of Criminal Contempt No.20 of 2008 is as under :-
(a) The report dated 18.12.2010 sent by District Judge does not disclose name of the alleged contemnor, creating disturbance in functioning of Court by way of strike or otherwise. No report adverse to contemnor has been given by District Judge, Kushinagar himself or while forwarding letter dated 19.1.2011 of Sri Piyush Verma A.D.J./F.T.C.-I.
(b) Sri Piyush Verma has shown no self restraint over himself and surreptitiously sent a separate letter dated 19.1.2011 directly to this Court.
(c) The letters of Sri Piyush Verma sent directly to this Court is by way of vengeance against members of Bar, in general, and the contemnor, Sri Bhagwati Sharma in particular, who according to him appeared to be instrumental in passing resolutions against corruption of Sri Piyush Verma and other Judicial Officers.
(d) A copy of resolution dated 17.1.2011 has been placed on record as Annexure no.2 to the affidavit. The Bar Association Padrauna passed a resolution on 24.11.2010 and sent a copy to this Court. The resolution states non payment of compensation deposited in Motor Accident Claim Cases despite several complaints to the District Judge.
(f) The District Judge though orally assured but no payment is being made and it is pending for the last six months and more. The cases in which arguments have concluded in August 2010 have not been decided till the date of resolution i.e. 24.11.2010.
(g) There is wide corruption in court premises. Resolutions no. 2,3 and 4 relevant for the present purpose are reproduced as below:
^^izLrko la0 2%& tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds U;k;ky; ds izkFkZuk i= esa lanfHkZr fo"k; o vkjksi lR; gS rFkk ,d nks U;k;ky;ksa dks NksM+dj l= fMohtu esa fLFkr leLr U;k;ky;ksa esa Hkz"Vkpkj O;kIr gS vkSj ,d ekg dk vkns'k vkSj fu.kZ; fdlh Hkh ekg dk tkap ds nk;js esa fy;k tk; rks lHkh U;k;ky;ksa esa O;kIr Hkz"Vkpkj Li"V ,oa mtkxj gks tk;sxk lk/kkj.k lHkk us loZlEefr ls izLrko ikfjr fd;k fd ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; mDr fo"k; dh tkap dj lkFkZd dk;Zokgh djsaA ftlls okndkfj;ksa dks fu"i{k U;k; fey ldsA izLrko la0 3%& loZ lEefr ls ;g izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k fd 25-12-2009 dks tc ekuuh; iz'kklfud U;k;ewfrZ l= ifjlj esa Rofjr U;k;ky; okpuky; ,oa iqLrdky; dk f'kykU;kl djus dq'khuxj i/kkjs rks vf/koDrkvksa dk f'k"V e.My ekuuh; iz'kklfud U;k;ewfrZ ls feydj tuin U;k;k/kh'k ds dk;Z iz.kkyh ,oa Hkz"V vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ckjs esa voxr djkrs gq, vuqjks/k fd;k FkkA mlds i'pkr Hkkh tuin U;k;k/kh'k ls vuqjks/k fd;k tkrk jgk ysfdu vc rd dksbZ lkFkZd dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ vLrq lk/kkj.k lHkk loZlEefr ls izLrko ikfjr djrh gS fd dy fnukad 25-11-2010 dks Hkz"Vkpkj ,oe tuin U;k;k/kh'k dh mnklhurk ds fojks/k esa ,d fnu dk lkadsfrd U;kf;d dk;Z dk cfg"dkj djsxsa vkSj leLr U;kf;d dk;ksZa ls fojr jgsxsA ;fn 15 fnu esa visf{kr dk;Zokgh ugha dh tkrh gS rks lk/kkj.k lHkk vfuf'pr dky rd U;kf;d dk;ksZa dk cfg"dkj djus dks ck/; gksxhA izLrko la0 4%& lfefr ds xBu ij fopkj& mijksDr izLrko ds lanHkZ esa Hkz"Vkpkj lEcfU/kr lk{;ksa dks laxzfgr djus ,oa lk/kkj.k lHkk ds izLrkoksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr djkus ds fy, lk/kkj.k lHkk }kjk Jh gfj'kadj nhf{kr] Jh foU/;okfluh izdk'k f=ikBh] Jh txnEck flag] Jh jk?kosUnz izrki flag] Jh vejukFk ik.Ms;] Jh odhy jko] Jh jesUnz JhokLro] Jh xksiky th frokjh] Jh [kq'khZn vkye] Jh izfl) ukjk;u nhf{kr] Jh egQwtqjZgeku] Jh jke izdk'k nhf{kr] Jh lat; frokjh o Jh egsUnz xksfoUn jko dh milfefr xfBr fd;k x;k tks viuk izR;kosnu dk;Zdkfj.kh ds le{k izLrqr djsxhA loZ lEefr ls ;g izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k fd milfefr ,oa dk;Zdkfj.kh ds la;qDr fu.kZ; dk izHkko lk/kkj.k lHkk ds izLrko ds leku gksxkA** Resolution no.2: The points and allegations mentioned in the application moved in the court of the District Judge are true and corruption is prevalent in the entire sessions division except one court or two. If the orders and decisions delivered in any month are brought under scrutiny, corruption prevalent in all the courts will be clear and exposed. The General House passed a resolution unanimously: " The hon'ble High Court should hold an inquiry on the subject and take meaningful action so that fair justice may be delivered to the litigants."
Resolution no. 3: This resolution was passed unanimously: " At the time of visit of the hon'ble Administrative Judge for laying foundation of the Fast Track Court reading room and library in the campus of the Sessions Court , a delegation of advocates had apprised him of the functioning of the District Judge and the corrupt officers. Even after that the District Judge was requested repeatedly but no meaningful action has been taken up as yet. Hence, the General House passes a resolution unanimously: "Tomorrow i.e. 25.11.2010 we will go on a day's token boycott of judicial functioning to register protest against the corruption and the indifference of the District Judge and will desist from all judicial functions. If desired action is not taken up within 15 days, the General House will be bound to boycott the judicial functions for an indefinite period."
Resolution no. 4 : Regarding formation of a committee - as mentioned above:
In context of the resolution, in order to collect all the relevant evidences related to corruption and so as to ensure compliance of the resolutions of the General House , a Sub- Committee was formed by the General House comprising Sri. Hari Shankar Dixit, Sri Vindhyavasini Prakash Tripathi, Sri Jagdamba Singh, Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Sri Amarnath Pandey, Sri Vakil Rao, Sri Ramendra Srivastava, Sri Gopal Ji Tiwari, Sri Khurshid Alam, Sri Prashidh Narayan Dixit, Sri Mahfuj-Ur-Rehman , Sri Ram Prakash Dixit, Sri Sanjay Tiwari and Sri Mahendra Govind Rao which will present its report before the Executive. The resolution was passed unanimously that the joint decision of the Sub-Committee and the Executive would have be same as the resolution of the General House."
(English translation by court)
(g) Resolution for strike was extended till action is taken by High Court in the matter of complaint of corruption.
(h) The Bar Association also debarred a member since he was found indulged in assaulting witness in Session Trial no.143 of 2005 State Vs. Ram Vriksh in the Court of Additional District Judge/F.T.C. III.
(i) The allegations made by Sri Piyush Verma in his letter dated 19.1.2011 are false, concocted and manipulated to set up his own defence as he was sure that his corrupt practice has been brought to the notice of Court and he may be punished therefor.
(j)The District Judge did not make any report within one year, therefore, the contemnor stood discharged on 6.2.2011 and no punishment now can be awarded against him.
(k) The notice in Criminal Contempt Application No.17 of 2011 having been issued on 30.10.2014 is barred by time under Section 20 of Act 1971 and Chapter 35-E Rule 5 of the High Court Rules 1950 hereafter referred the 'Rule 1952'.
(l) Sri Piyush Verma has levelled false and fabricated charges against the contemnor. On the contrary Sri Piyush Verma himself was found indulged in corrupt practices and reverted from the post of Additional District Judge to the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) by notification dated 24.4.2013.
18. We have taken first the defence on behalf of the contemnor in criminal contempt no. 20 of 2008. Hear the contemnor has already been held guilty and only the question of sentence has to be considered. The court put contemnor's conduct under watch for one year. The intention is quite clear. If the contemnor maintains a good conduct in the next one year he may not be punished, else, the court would pass suitable order for punishment. Sri M.D. Misra, learned counsel for contemnor vehemently contended that this order of keeping watch over the conduct of contemnor for one year was passed on 5.2.2010 meaning thereby the period of one year would expire on 4.2.2011 and within this period no complaint was made by District Judge regarding conduct of contemnor, hence he stood discharged on the expiry of one year. The subsequent letter sent by Sri Piyush Verma or the endorsement or forward by District Judge or any other letter of District Judge or report would make no difference.
19. So far as the District Judge's letter dated 18.12.2010 is concerned he said that it has not individually made any comment or complaint against contemnor and therefore on that basis, no punishment can be imposed. We find the entire submission of learned counsel appearing for contemnor thoroughly misconceived. A careful perusal of operative part of order dated 5.2.2010 makes it very clear that conduct and behaviour of contemnor was to be watched by Court for a period of one year w.e.f. 5.2.2010 upto 4.2.2011. The period of one year was for the purpose of watching conduct and behaviour of contemnor and not for reporting of such conduct which obviously could have come either within this period of one year or even thereafter. This is not a period of limitation for the purpose of making report. The Order further says that District Judge, Kushinagar shall monitor conduct for a period of one year but in fact watching of conduct and behaviour of contemnor was by this Court. For that purpose, it could have received information from any source including Judicial Officers posted in District Judgeship, Kushinagar at Padarauna or the District Judge or by any other means.
20. The order that contemnor shall stand discharged on expiry of the period is clearly subject to the condition, if he maintains orderly, good and disciplined behaviour and does not indulge himself in repetition of such acts as rendered him guilty of criminal contempt vide order dated 5.2.2010. Therefore the satisfaction has to be recorded by this Court, about orderly, good and disciplined behaviour maintained by contemnor and not by District Judge or any one else or the contemnor. If within one year, no report or complained was received by Court that does not mean that by application of principle of limitation contemnor would stand discharged and no punishment can be imposed. As already said, the period of one year was for the purpose of watching contemnor's conduct but regarding report of such conduct to be received by court, it could be either within the said period or beyond that. This intimation could have been received by court from any source including District Judge who was specifically required to monitor the conduct. The satisfaction of good conduct is that of this court. Contemnor did not show good, orderly and disciplined behaviour since he participated again in illegal strike etc., and creating disturbance in Court below. This has been confirmed from District Judges' report dated 18.12.2010 and Sri Piyush Verma, Additional District Judge's letter dated 9.1.2011. Except arguing the technical issue of limitation regarding aforesaid conduct, nothing has been addressed on merits. However, justifying the conduct of strike and slogan shouting etc., it is said that contemnor being President of Association has his duty to represent Association and communicate decision taken by Association.
21. In our view, even if an Advocate has held any other office, his responsibility as an officer of court being an Advocate does not cease. He is bound to maintain decorum of the court.
22. An Advocate's duty is as important as that of a Judge. He has a large responsibility towards society. He is expected to act with utmost sincerity and respect. In all professional functions, an Advocate should be diligent and his conduct should also be diligent. He should conform to the requirements of law. He plays a vital role in preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the public justice system is enabled to function at its full potential. He, who practices law, is not merely a lawyer, but acts as moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character on any 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, like all his possession, he is bound to use for moral ends. Members of the Bar, like Judges, are the officers of the Court. Advocacy is a respectable noble profession on the principles. An Advocate owes duty not only to his client, but to the Court, to the society and, not the least, to his profession.
23. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly we have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge for an order passed by him but not to the liking of a party. If there is something lacking on the part of a Judicial Officer touching his integrity, Advocates, being Officers of the Court, may not remain a silent spectator, but should come forward, raising their voice in appropriate manner before the proper authority, but there cannot be a licence to any member of Bar to raise his finger over the competency and integrity etc. of a Judicial Officer, casually or negligently, or on other irrelevant grounds. Here the competence and capacity of the concerned Judicial Officer has been attempted to be maligned commenting upon his integrity and honesty. It deserves to be condemned in the strongest words. No one can justify it in any manner. Thinking of intrusion of such thought itself sounds alert. It is a siren of something which is not only very serious, but imminent. It is a concept or an idea which should not have cropped up in anybody's mind, connected with the system of justice, and if has cropped up, deserves to be nipped at earliest, else, it may spreads its tentacles to cover others and that would be a dooms day for the very institution.
24. Wild imaginary allegations against conduct of Judicial Officer without having any material to substantiate the same cannot be tolerated, inasmuch as, it not only brings into disrepute the entire justice system but is likely to cause serious erosion in the confidence of public in case such tendency is not snuffed at the earliest. The Judicial Officer/Judges had no platform to stand and clarify the circumstances in which the order has been passed by them. They had no platform to defend themselves. The strength of judiciary comes from the strong public opinion which it has in the system. If unsubstantiated flimsy imaginary fanciful allegations made by a party, who did not find its order in its favour, it will demolish the very foundation of the system of justice. Every order passed by the Court will be in favour of one of the party and against another. The losing party cannot be allowed to challenge the very integrity of Judicial Officer in passing an order and that too without any material to support such a allegation. If we allow such a trend to remain unnoticed, or condone the same without any appropriate action, it will not only encourage such tendency amongst others but also the resultant situation may cause a serious blow to the system of administration of justice, which is one of the founding pillars of constitutional scheme and has to be protected by all legal and reasonable means.
25. We are, therefore, satisfied that the contemnor has failed to maintain the good conduct and behaviour which can be said to be orderly, good and disciplined, therefore, he deserves an appropriate punishment.
26. Now, we come to Criminal Contempt Application No. 17 of 2011.
27. This contempt has been registered separately for subsequent acts and activities of contemnor, after judgement dated 5.2.2010, as they constitute 'criminal contempt' giving fresh cause of action but we find that for the purpose of sentence, the same activities have been taken into consideration in connected Criminal Contempt Application No.20 of 2008 also. It is true, that subsequent activities may give rise to different cause of action, and therefore, another trial for criminal contempt would have been permissible but since activities subsequent to judgement dated 5.2.2010 are being considered to draw inference that contemnor has not shown any improvement in discipline or conduct in Court and, therefore, it justifies award of punishment in Criminal Contempt No. 20 of 2008. Therefore we are of the view that fresh trial would not be justified. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we are of the view, that two punishments by treating same activities/acts and omissions into account would not be proper and just. Since Criminal Contempt Application no.17 of 2011 has also been considered along with criminal contempt application no.20 of 2011, therefore, we are not separately holding trial in subsequent criminal contempt application and confining our order to consider award of punishment to contemnor in the context of earlier judgement dated 5.2.2010 and that will dispose of both the matters.
28. Having given our anxious consideration and serious thought to the entire circumstances, we find that conduct of contemnor is quite grave and serious. It demands severe punishment. We, therefore, impose punishment of simple imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.2000/- upon contemnor in Criminal Contempt Application no.20 of 2008 in furtherance of this court judgement dated 5.2.2010. In case of non- deposit of fine, contemnor shall undergo further simple imprisonment of three months.
29. Further, in order to maintain discipline and smooth functioning of District Judgeship, we restrain the contemnor from entering the premises to practice as an advocate for a period of one year. This period shall commence w.e.f.20th July 2015.
30. We also direct the District Judge, Kushinagar to keep close watch over the conduct of contemnor, whenever he commences his entry in Court premises to practice law, for a period of two years, and if found any thing otherwise, shall report to the Court suo motu without any delay.
31. Both applications stands disposed of with the direction as above.
Order Date :- 10.7.2015/vkg Court No. - 34 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 20 of 2008 Applicant :- In Re: (Sri. S.P.Sharma C.J.M. Kushinagar) Opposite Party :- Bhagwati Sharma Advocate Kushinagar Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.B.P. Srivastava,Dheeraj Srivastva And Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 17 of 2011 Applicant :- In Re:
Opposite Party :- Sri Bhagwati Sharma Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra(A.C.) Counsel for Opposite Party :- B.B.P.Srivastava,M.D.Mishra Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta, J.
1. After delivery of judgement, the contemnor pray that sentence imposed by this Court vide judgement of date be suspended to enable him to avail statutory remedy of appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1971") before the superior court.
2. In the circumstances, we suspend the sentence for a period of 60 days to enable him to avail remedy of appeal. In case, the appeal is not filed or if filed but no otherwise order is passed in the appeal, the contemnor shall surrender before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar, who would immediately take appropriate steps for serving out sentence by contemnor as directed in the judgement of date passed in this contempt application.
Order Date :- 10.7.2015/vkg