State Of U.P. vs N.B.Singh Advocate
2011 Latest Caselaw 6635 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 4
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 634 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- State Of U.P.
 
Respondent :- N.B.Singh Advocate
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Govt.Advocate (Reference)
 
Respondent Counsel :- G.K. Mehrotra,N.S. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J.

1. This criminal contempt proceeding has arisen on a reference made by Sri Sheetal Singh, the then Incharge District Judge, Raebareli forwarding copy of complaint of Sri A.K. Srivastava, the then IIIrd Additional District Judge, Raebareli about misbehaviour, misdemanor and abuse by N.B. Singh, Advocate, the contemnor.

2. The facts as discerned from the report of the complainant namely the third Additional District Judge, Raebareli in brief are as under.

3. In a matter relating to succession certificate, the contemnor moved an application seeking time for approaching appropriate Court for transfer of the case. The application was allowed and time was granted. Thereafter the matter was adjourned on several occasions. On 7.11.1998, the contemnor and his companion lawyers forcefully entered the chamber of IIIrd Additional District Judge inquiring as to why misc. case relating disposal of succession was put on an earlier date and dismissed in default of appearance. The presiding officer claimed to have explained the things but contemnor continued to shout and raised slogans "SRIVASTAVA MURDABAD", "CHORKAT" and "CHORKATAI". It is said that aforesaid conduct of contemner and his companion lawyers of creating nuisance and hampering judicial working amounts to willful criminal contempt of Court and the proceedings be initiated against the erring lowers.

4. Initially this matter was placed before a Division Bench at Allahabad wherefrom it was transferred to this Court, pursuant to Division Bench order dated 3rd March, 1999 since district Raebareli comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Bench.

5. The matter when taken up today, an application supported by an affidavit has been filed by contemnor, Sri N.B. Singh, Advocate through Sri A.S. Chaudhary, Advocate.

6. The learned counsel for the contemnor at the outset stated that misdemeanor and misbehavior on the part of the contemnor cannot be justified and hence he is tendering unconditional apology for the aforesaid incident which took place 13 years back. He further undertake to maintain good behavior in future. Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for contemnor has placed reliance on the Apex Court's decision O.P. Sharma and others Vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2011) 2 SCC (Crl) 821 and submitted that contemnor at the first opportunity has extended apology which should be accepted. This Court must show magnanimity in this matter and should drop the proceedings. The fact that at the first opportunity this unconditional apology is being tendered which shows bonafide and honest repentance on the part of contemnor. He thus prayed that his undertaking be accepted and the contempt notice be discharged.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.

8. It is really unfortunate that the contemnor who is a practicing Advocate of district Raebareli had a long standing even 13 years ago since his age is shown today as 60 years. Having failed to persuade learned Additional District Judge, he switched gear to derogatory remarks, abusive language from persuasive advocacy, may be in that hope that such tactic would succeed. To his utter dismay, not only he failed but the learned Judge made of a stern stuff, not only refused to succumb such unprofessional conduct but made a record of disrespectful, abusive and derogatory language used by contemnor with intention to tarnish his image as Judicial Officer and forwarded report to the District Judge who in turn reported the matter to this Court to initiate appropriate proceedings.

9. Words uttered by contemnor no doubt show his clear intention of casting aspersions on learned Judge and lower him in the esteem of others. He intended to create doubt regarding judicial impartiality, independence and honesty of the learned Judge. This tendency of a Member of Bar is really unfortunate and needs to be nipped in the bud. A Member of noble legal profession is not expected to resort such cheap gimmicks. It is really painful. An attempt to scandalise not only reputation of the Judge but in the consequence the entire institution needs be deprecated in the strongest words. Use of abusive language, abrasive behaviour, veiled threats and some times condemnatory verbal attack like the present one raise larger issues touching reputation and independence of not only the individual Judge but the entire institution. If such an attitude is pardoned in a lighter way, it may give a wrong massage. If disparaging and derogatory remarks made by such impertinent person are shown any leniency, it may shake the very confidence of people in the system. Independent and bold judiciary is in essence a need of the time. The members of legal profession, in order to seek small gains, if endeavor to this extent, it shall betray a lack of respect for those who have fought for independence of judiciary and have made it to see light of this day.

10. The contemnor claims that he rendered apology at the first opportunity. This matter is pending since 2001 and after service of notice the contemnor put in appearance for the first time on 20th July, 2001. He has taken more than 10 years in submitting alleged unconditional apology claiming it to be at the earliest opportunity.

11. Can it be said to be honest and bonafide apology showing repentance in the conduct of contemnor or a mere shallow and hollow attempt on his part to wriggle out the clutches of law. He has shown, admittedly, a conduct which is highly disrespectful to the institution of justice, though the utterances are in respect to an individual member of a judicial institution. It is not unworthy to reiterate that a Court of Majesty or the High Court is sacrosanct. The integrity and sanctity of institution which has been bestowed upon itself the responsibility of dispensing justice is ought to be maintained at all cost. Judges, advocates and staff of the court all constitute part of this system. They are supposed to act in accordance with morals and ethics. An advocate's professional conduct is as important as of a Judge. He has serious and important responsibility towards society and in particular to the institution of justice. He plays a vital role in the preservation of society and justice system. He is under an obligation to uphold the rule of law. He must ensure that the justice system enabled to function at its potential. He should be dignified in his dealings to the Court. He must believe that the legal profession has an element of service. He has a social duty to be a model for the people and to show them a beacon of light by his conduct, actions and utterances. Unfortunately, the conduct of contemnor fails in all these respects which shows that the contemnor has not preserved professional ethics and moral as also his duties towards Court in correct perspective. We can not loose sight of the fact that subordinate courts are functioning in a very different atmosphere, charged, tense and full of extraordinary work load. They are reeling under huge pendency of court cases. Most of the Judges are working for long hours and have no time virtually to raise their neck. The working atmosphere in subordinate courts is quite unfavourable yet we must give due credit to Presiding Officers in discharging their duties diligently and untirelessly. The subordinate judiciary forms the backbone of administration of justice. This Court, exercising administrative and supervisory powers, is under an obligation to ensure that the Judges of the subordinate courts are not subjected to scrupulous and indecent attacks or anything which lowers or has tendency to lower their authority. No affront to the Majesty of Justice of law can be permitted. The fountain cannot be allowed to be polluted by disgruntled elements. No one can be allowed to terrorise or intimidate Judges of subordinate courts. This is basic and fundamental. A civilized system of administration of justice can neither permit nor tolerate it.

12. Considering the language which contemnor has used in the matter and also the fact that the incident, the behaviour and the utterances have not been disputed, we have no hesitation but to hold that the contemnor Sri N.B. Singh is guilty of committing criminal contempt of this Court.

13. Now the question of our consideration whether contemnor's alleged unconditional apology is genuine, deserves to be accepted without imposing any punishment or this Court should punish him suitably in view of above finding upholding his guilt.

14. In L.D. Jaikwal Vs. State of U.P. 1984 (3) SCC 405 the Court observed that acceptance of an apology from a contemnor should only be a matter of exception and not that of a rule. Any other view may be treated by scrupulous persons as licence to scandalise courts and commit contempt of court with impunity and whenever the proceedings are initiated, tender apology and escape from punitive liability. It may also hamper confidence of the Judges of subordinate courts and may have the effect of demoralizing them. This situation cannot be countenanced else it may damage the very foundation of system.

15. In order to stress his case, learned counsel for the contemnor has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of O.P. Sharma (supra) but we find therein that when matter was pending before High Court, the unconditional apology was tendered and thereafter the contemnors also appeared before the Magistrate concerned and expressed their regret and tendered unconditional apology. Even thereafter the High Court after convicting contemnors imposed punishment of simple imprisonment of six months/three months with a fine of rupees one thousand to rupees two thousand each. There the incident took place in 1999 and the High Court decided the matter in 2004. During very this period the contemnors had already tendered unconditional apology therein. In the present case, contemnor had put in appearance before this Court for the first time on 20th July, 2001 but did not show any repentance to his conduct by filing his response or affidavit etc. The order-sheet shows that the matter was adjourned since his counsel was not present and the Court was constrained to direct for his personal appearance. This order was passed on 29th September, 2011 and despite thereto the contemnor remained absent. On the next date i.e. 21th November, 2011 when again this Court directed for his personal appearance, it is only thereto the contemnor is present today and has filed affidavit.

16. In view of the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, we are of the view that the contemnor's conduct show lack of honest repentance and bonafide in tendering unconditional apology and, therefore, we are not satisfied that the same should be accepted so as to not impose any punishment upon him and let him go unpunished. Having held him guilty of committing contempt but considering the fact that the contemnor is now in advance age of 60 years and the incident is 13 years old, the ends of justice would meet by imposing punishment of fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

17. We order accordingly.

Order Date :- 22.12.2011

Manish/