In Re vs Sri Ujendra Vir Singh Advocate & ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 640 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 04.05.2015
 
Delivered on 25.05.2015
 
Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 10 of 2013
 

 
Applicant :- In Re
 
Opposite Party :- Sri Ujendra Vir Singh Advocate & Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Tiwari,Anurag Pathak,D.K.Kulshrstha,Deepak Kr.,K.S.Chahar,Rakesh Pathak,S. Pandey,S.D. Pandey,S.P.Pandey,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.)

1. Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad sent a letter dated 24.5.2013 to District Judge, Firozabad, complaining the behaviour of certain advocates, causing embarrassment by abusing and threatening and creating disturbance in his chamber while he was performing some official work.

2. It is said that at about 12.10 AM he passed an order in bail application no. 811 of 2003 in Smt. Suman Singh and Sri Maghvendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. under Section 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. read with Section 27/30 of the Arms Act, rejecting the same. When he retired to his chamber, at about 12.10 PM, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Praveen Upadhyay and 100 or 200 Advocates came in the gallery adjoining his Chamber. Sri Ujendra Vir Singh, Advocate entered the Chamber and abused him. He also threatened that on Monday he shall be beaten and would not be allowed to work. He endorsed the aforesaid incident at the end of the order dated 24.5.2013 passed on bail application and thereafter communicated the said endorsement to District Judge vide letter dated 24.5.2013. The endorsement made by Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad reads as under :

^^mDr vkns'k ikfjr fd;s tkus ds mijkUr Jh mtsUnz ohj flag vf/koDrk tks vijk/k la0 [email protected] /kkjk 307] 504] 506 Hkk-na-la- o /kkjk [email protected] vk;q/k vf/kfu;e Fkkuk Vw.Myk ds vijk/k esa ukfer gS] esjs pSEcj esa 12-10 cts mifLFkr vk;sA pSEcj ls yxh xSyjh esa Jh /keZ flag ;kno ,M0 o Jh izohu mik/;k; ,M0 o vU; 100&200 vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkr jgs tks ukjs yxk jgs FksA Jh mtsUnz ohj flag vf/koDrk us pSEcj esa eq>s eknjpksn vkSj cfgu pksn dh xkyh nsrs gq;s dgk fd lkseokj ls vkidh fiVkbZ dh tk;sxh vkSj vkidks dk;Z ugha djus fn;k tkosxkA mDr mifLFkr vf/koDrkx.k yxkrkj xSyjh ls xkyh xykSt vkSj vi'kCnksa dk iz;ksx djrs jgsA**

"After the said order having been passed, Shri Ujendra Vir Singh, Advocate who is named in Case Crime No. 225/13 registered u/s 307, 504, 506 IPC, and u/s 27/30 of Arms Act, PS Tundla, appeared in my chamber at 12:10 hours. In the gallery adjacent to the chamber, Shri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate; Shri Praveen Upadhyay, Advocate; and 100-200 other advocates were present shouting slogans. Shri Ujendra Vir Singh, Advocate, while using expletives Madarchod and Behanchod for me in the chamber, said, "You will be beaten on Monday and you will not be allowed to work." The said advocates who were present kept using abusive and derogative words from the gallery.

(English translation by court)

3. Pursuant thereto Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, District Judge, Firozabad, vide letter dated 24.5.2013 referred the matter to this Court for initiating proceedings for Criminal Contempt. Some of the relevant contents of reference letter of District Judge are reproduced as under:

^^mDr vkns'k ikfjr djus ds dqN gh le; i'pkr vf/koDrk Jh /keZ flag ;kno ,oa Jh izoh.k mik/;k;] 100&200 vU; vf/koDrkvksa dks ysdj Jh JhokLro ds foJke d{k esa igqap x;s rFkk vf/koDrk Jh mtsUnz ohj flag us ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh JhokLro ds lkFk vHknzrk djrs gq, ekWa&cgu dh xkfy;ka nh] ftldh lwpuk Jh JhokLro us fyf[kr esa esjs le{k nhA tc vf/koDrkx.k 'kksj epk jgs Fks rFkk xkyh ns jgs Fks rks eSa Hkh Jh Jhoklro ds foJke d{k ds ikl igqapkA eSaus tkrs gh HkhM+ dks gVok;kA vf/koDrkx.k] Jh JhokLro dks viekfur djus dh dksf'k'k dj jgs FksA**

"Only a little while after the said order having been passed, Advocates Shri Dharam Singh Yadav and Shri Praveen Upadhyay took 100-200 other advocates with them and reached Shri Srivastava's rest room; and Advocate Shri Ujendra Vir Singh, while showing indecency to the Presiding Officer Shri Srivastava, used abusive language targeting his mother and sister; written information whereof was given to me by him. When the advocates were raising noise, I also reached near Shri Srivastava's rest house. Immediately after reaching there, I caused the crowd to disperse. Advocates were trying to humiliate Shri Srivastava.

(English translation by court)

4. The reference letter of District Judge also shows that Smt. Suman Singh is the wife of Sri Ujendra Vir Singh, Advocate and Sri Maghvendra Pratap Singh is his son.

5. The Hon'ble Chief Justice on 7.8.2013 approved the matter for placing before the Bench dealing with Criminal Contempt.

6. Thereafter on 13.09.2013, Court issued notices to abovenamed three Advocates and also directed District Judge to enquire, who were other Advocates, participated in the aforesaid activities of slogan raising and abusing. Order dated 30.9.2013, passed by Court reads as under:

"Heard learned AGA for the State of U.P.

This reference has been moved by Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District and Session Judge, Court No. 1, Firozabad, regarding initiation of criminal contempt against Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate, Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate and other 100-200 advocates vide his letter dated 24.05.2013 addressed to District and Sessions Judge, Firozabad.

In the present reference, it is stated that application No. 811/2013 Smt. Suman Singh W/o Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate and Sri Maghvendra Pratap Singh S/o Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate of District Firozabad, crime No. 225/2013 u/s 307/504/506 I.P.C. and u/s 27/30 Arms Act, Thana Tundla, District Firozabad has been fixed for hearing on today i.e. 24.05.2013. The said bail application alongwith other application were present on 24.05.2013 for hearing. At the time of hearing time was seeked from the side of prosecution verbally and also said that in this connection no paper were present due to which 27.5.2013 was fixed for the bail application by the officer concerned. On 25.05.2013 there was a local holiday in District Court Firozabad so the next working day was 27.05.2013. The Advocates present the interim bail application along with the bail application for hearing that was rejected by the officer concerned Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava. After passing the said order Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, 100-200 other Advocates came in the chamber of the officer concerned Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava and Sri Ujendra Vir Singh, misbehaved with the officer concerned and abused Sri Srivastava. The officer concerned gave an application to the District Judge in writing. When the Disrict Judge reached near the chamber of the officer concerned the Advocates were shouting. The District Judge removed the mob. The Advocates were trying to show disrespect towards the officer concerned. The officer concerned has given application for initiating Contempt of Court against the aforesaid Advocates.

The allegations made in the refernce letter and letter dated 24.05.2013 sent by District Judge, Firozabad, prima facie disclosing the commission of the criminal contempt committed by Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate, Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate and other 100-200 advocates, whose names are not disclosed, because they have tried to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings, obstructed in the functioning of the court and tried to lower down the authority of the court. Issue notice to Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate, and Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate through Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad to submit the reply or to explain as to why the proceedings of the criminal contempt may not be initiated against them and they may not be charged for the same, returnable within a period of four weeks from today, the notice shall be accompanied by the reference. The notices shall be served upon them personally.

The District Judge, Firozabad is also directed to inquire into the matter and to find out the names of 100-200 advocates who also participated in the commission of the abovementioned offence in the company of Sri Ujendra Veer Singh Advocate, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav Advocate and Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate. The enquiry report shall also be submitted within a month by District Judge, Firozabad.

List on 06.11.2013.

On that date, above mentioned contemnors, namely, Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate and Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate shall appear in person before this Court."

7. After receiving notices, contemnors filed their separate affidavits in reply.

8. Contemnor no.1, Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate in his counter affidavit sworn on 06.11.2013 has stated that his brother lodged a First Information Report against contemnor no.1, his wife Smt. Suman Singh and son. Case was registered as case crime no.225 of 2013 under Section 307,504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 27 and 30 of Arms Act. Contemnor no.1 applied for bail vide application dated 30.4.2013 which was considered by District Judge and initially interim bail was granted on 2.5.2013 which was made final on 6.5.2013. Thereafter, the co-accused i.e. wife and son of the contemnor no.1 came to this Court in writ petition no.9460 of 2013 for quashing of First Information Report. Vide Judgment dated 17.05.2013, this Court dismissed the writ petition finding no reason for quashing First Information Report. Thereafter, two co-accused filed bail application on 24.5.2013 which came up before Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad but he did not grant interim bail and fixed 27.5.2013 for hearing of the application. The said order, passed by Court was wrong. The counsel of co-accused brought the matter to office bearers of Bar Association, Firozabad namely Sri Suresh Yadav and others who met District Judge and raised questions about finding of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad. Some young advocates also suggested to move for criminal contempt against the said judicial officer which was overheard by him. He then maliciously sent a letter to District Judge for initiating criminal contempt proceeding. Bail application of co-accused subsequently was heard by District & Sessions Judge on 27.05.2013 who released co-accused on interim bail which was made final on 26.6.2013. It is said that allegations made against contemnor no.1 are not true. He did not enter the Chamber of Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District Judge, Firozabad. He did not abuse him as alleged and all other allegations made in letter dated 24.5.2013 are incorrect. Contemnor no.1 was not a part of mob. He has 32 years of practice to his credit and performed without any complaint, never caused any harm to the dignity of Court. In para 14 of affidavit it is said that he had not done anything yet tenders unconditional apology.

9. The contemnor no. 2, Sri Dharam Singh Yadav in his affidavit sworn on 6.11.2013 has said that he was not part of mob, allegedly present outside the chamber of Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad. He strongly condemns the incident and regrets for whatever happened on that date. In para 7 the contemnor no.2 further reiterated that he again regrets that the incident was unfortunate and condemns the same. He then also tendered unconditional apology and assured that such eventuality would not occur in future.

10. Contemnor no.3 Sri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate in his affidavit sworn on 6.11.2013 has said that he had no concern with the incident dated 24.5.2013. He was not present at the place outside the Court of Sri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge. It appears that his name has been included due to some confusion or without verifying the fact whether he was present or not.

11. Pursuant to this Court's order dated 30.9.2013, the District Judge submitted a report stating that no one is coming forward to disclose names of other Advocates who participated in the commission of offence.

12. This Court on 17.2.2014 considered the aforesaid affidavits of contemnors and did not find any reason to accept their apology. It decided to frame charge against the three contemnors and a common charge for all the three contemnors as hereunder was framed:

"Bail Application No. 811 of 2013 Smt. Suman Singh w/o Shri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate and Sri Maghvendra Pratap Singh s/o Sri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate in crime No.225 of 2013 under sections 225/2013, 307/504/506 I.P.C. read with under section 27/30 Arms Act, P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad was fixed for hearing on 24th May, 2013. The said application along with other applications was to be taken up on 24th May, 2013 for hearing. At the said point of time when the said bail application in question was taken up, time was sought from the side of prosecution by mentioning that no papers were present in regard to the said criminal case and accordingly, Presiding Officer Shri Guru Sharan Srivastava, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No.1, Firozabad at the said point of time proceeded to fix 27th May, 2013 for hearing of the bail application. On 25th May, 2013, there was a local holiday in District Court, Firozabad and the next working day was 27th May, 2013 and then at the said poit of time request was made for interim bail application along with bail application and the Presiding Officer proceeded to reject the same. After such judicial discretion was exercised by the Presiding Officer concerned, the Advocates who are before this Court namely Shri Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate, Shri Dharam Singh Yadav, Advocate and Shri Praveen Upadhyaya, Advocate alongwith 100-200 advocates entered into the chamber of the Presiding Officer and Ujendra Veer Singh, Advocate misbehaved with the Presiding Officer by abusing him and thus committed offence under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. By such an act, the contemnors not only have interfered in the judicial proceedings but have lowered the prestige of the Court also. In such a situation and in this background, as the system itself has been attacked all these three contemnors are charged for committing criminal contempt."

13. Replying the charge, Sri Ujendra Vir Singh, contemnor no.1 in his affidavit sworn on 9.4.2014, stated that the reply he has already submitted, be treated as his his reply to the charge framed against him. However, he further reiterated of tendering unconditional apology.

14. Contemnor no.2 in his affidavit dated 12.5.2014, replying the charge, reiterated the contents of affidavit dated 6.11.2013, submitted in reply by contemnor no.1. However, in paras 12 and 13, he said that the allegations made against him are incorrect. He was neither present in the chamber nor part of the mob and has done nothing. In para 15, however, contemnor no.2 said as under :

"That the opposite party no.2 is highly hurt with the incident which was unfortunate and happened on that day."

15. Contemnor no.3 filed short reply vide affidavit dated 9.4.2014, stating that his earlier reply be treated as reply to the charge against him.

16. On behalf of contemnor no.1, another affidavit has been filed by Sri Praveen Upadhyay, contemonr no.3, sworn on 25.2.2015, in which he said in para 5, as under:

"That the O.P. No.1 again regrets that the incident was unfortunate and condemns the same."

17. On 4.5.2015, when matter came up before us, we specifically enquired from contemnors whether they want to file any further reply or adduce any evidence, to which, they replied that they do not propose to file anything further and Court may proceed to hear and decide this contempt application on the basis of record already available. S/Sri Anil Tiwari and K.S. Chahar, learned counsel appearing for all three contemnors further said that though in earlier affidavits/ replies filed by contemnors, they have contested allegations levelled against them but today they do not propose to contest the matter at all. They said that incident which took place, was really unfortunate and should not have occurred. They also said that contemnors really feel sorry for the aforesaid incident and surrender themselves to the mercy of the Court with folded hands tendering their unconditional apology.

18. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned counsel nominated by Court to assist, said, that entering the chamber of a judicial officer and misbehaving and abusing him, with respect to a judicial order passed by him, is a serious act of criminal contempt and deserves to be dealt with severe punishment so that such incident may not recur.

19. We may also put on record our observations in respect of three contemnors i.e. their demeanours in the Court. The first contemnor when tendered apology, was told that he has done a serious contemptuous act for which appropriate punishment is necessary. He did not say anything further. However, when contemnors no. 2 and 3 came up and expressed their apology they repeated remorse to the Court assuring that in future nothing of the sort, which has happened, would be repeated and they really feel guilty for what has happened which should not have happened and it is really unfortunate. Both were very serious and their demeanours were noticed by both of us showing a sense of remorse on their faces.

20. Now, we proceed on the merits of the matter.

21. In the background of the matter there is a bail application filed on behalf of two persons, namely, Smt. Suman Singh and Sri Maghvendra Pratap Singh, wife and son respectively of contemnor no.1.

22. Admittedly, he (contemnor no.1) was personally interested in the matter. On 24.5.2013, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge deferred hearing on the said application and fixed on 27.5.2013. The result would have been that two applicants would have remained in jail. It is quite natural and obvious that this annoyed and irritated contemnor no.1. Though, he has said that matter was taken to the office bearers of Bar Association by the counsel who appeared in bail application, but it can not be doubted that contemnor no.1 must have accompanied and had been instrumental in all these proceedings. It is also true that office bearers and some of the members of Bar Association showed an attitude of great disrespect which is highly objectionable. They commented adversely on Judicial Order passed by Court concerned, as is evident from affidavit of contemnor no.1 filed earlier, that office bearers of Association raised questions about the order passed by concerned Judicial Officer before the District Judge. The District Judge was not an appellate or revisional authority who could have looked into the correctness of judicial order passed by officer concerned.

23. Be that as it may, it is also evident from record that an incident actually took place inside the chamber of judicial officers and in the gallery. The advocates collected, gathered and raised slogans. They abused the judicial officer. Three contemnors in the earlier affidavit filed before the Court have tried to dispute their individual presence but occurrence of incident is admitted for the reason that all three contemnors have also said in one or the other affidavits that they feel sorry and regret about unfortunate incident which took place. The occurrence of incident stands proved.

24. Then comes questions about what has been done by individual contemnors. There is a clear report by concerned judicial officer that Sri Ujendra Veer Singh entered the chamber and abused him in filthiest language. Though, contemnor no.1 has denied it but has not adduced any evidence to support his denial. It was contempt on the face of subordinate court and onus lay upon contemnors to disprove allegations made by concerned judicial officer in Reference Order. The abuse and misbehaviour with judicial officer by advocates has also been confirmed by District Judge. Contemnor no.1 has motive to show such objectionable behaviour. Moreso, on 4.5.2015, before this Court, he said that he does not propose to contest the matter and therefore, we find no hesitation in holding the charge proved against contemnor no.1.

25. Now, comes question of contemnor nos. 2 and 3. Their names have specifically been mentioned by concerned judicial officer in the endorsement made on bail order dated 24.5.2013, and thereafter, has been reiterated in his letter sent to District Judge. Though, contmnor nos. 2 and 3 have said that they were not present in gallery or were part of the mob but neither they said, where they were, nor otherwise adduced any evidence except of bare denial. The occurrence of incidence has been admitted by contemnors no.2 and 3 in all the affidavits filed by them. In absence of any material or evidence adduced by contemnors no. 2 and 3 to support their denial or to show anything wrong in the report made by Additional District and Sessions Judge in respect of misbehaviour and abuse on their part and other advocates on 24.5.2013, we find no reason to take a different view. We find no hesitation in holding the charge proved against them also.

26. It has not been argued by learned counsel for contemnors that the allegations, if proved do constitute a "criminal contempt" as defined under Section 2 (C) of Act 1971. Having said so, we feel quite disturbed looking to the situation where advocates in general could go to the extent of misbehaving and abusing a judicial officer if he has not passed a judicial order as desired by learned counsel or to his/their choice. In order to create a pressure upon judicial officer, an ugly scene was created.

27. Of late, we find a deep increasing tendency of advocates in making scurrilous allegations against presiding officers of subordinate Courts. They do not hesitate in going to the extent of dishonouring of Presiding Officer as well as the Court by abusing and misbehaving, openly, in presence of public at large, which includes litigants, clerks and others, in Courts or inside the Court campus. If an order has not been passed by a Judicial Officer to the liking of an advocate, remedy lies elsewhere but no one can have liberty to create a situation/ an ugly scene, by raising abusive slogans against officer(s) as well as the Court. If this would not have the effect of lowering authority and majesty of the Court, what else can be.

28. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize a judicial Officer of subordinate Court, it is bound to shake confidence of litigating public in the system and has to be tackled strictly. The damage is caused not only to the reputation of concerned Judge, but, also to the fair name of judiciary. Veiled threats, abrasive behaviour, use of disrespectful language, 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 independence and impartiality of the men having responsibility to impart justice i.e. Judicial Officers. If their confidence, impartiality and reputation is shaken, it is bound to affect the very independence of judiciary. Any person, if allowed to make disparaging and derogatory remarks against a Judicial Officer, with impunity, is bound to result in breaking down the majesty of justice.

29. We cannot ignore the fact that much cherished judicial independence needs protection not only from over zealous executive or power hungry legislature but also from those who constitute, and, are integral part of the system. Here is a case where the Advocates have shown behaviour like an unruly mob of hooligans. The Advocates forgetting the higher status conferred upon them, making them Officers of the Court, have chosen to malign Judicial Officer of the Subordinate Court.

30. 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 a moral agent. This character, he cannot shake off, by any other character 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, 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.

31. We do not intend to lay down any code of conduct for the class of the peoples known as "Advocates", but certainly have no hesitation in observing that no Advocate has any business to condemn a Judge by abusing etc. for a judicial order has not passed. 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.

32. This Court has a constitutional obligation to protect subordinate judges. In Smt. Munni Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013(2) AWC 1546 this Court in para 10, has said:

"10. Be that as it may, so far as the present case is concerned, suffice is to mention that the Constitution makers have imposed constitutional obligation upon the High Court to exercise control over subordinate judiciary. This control is both ways. No aberration shall be allowed to enter the Subordinate Judiciary so that its purity is maintained. Simultaneously Subordinate Judiciary can not be allowed to be attacked or threatened to work under outside pressure of anyone, whether individual or a group, so as to form a threat to objective and independent functioning of Subordinate Judiciary."

33. Criticism of an order of a Court cannot be equated with making scurrilous attack on the conduct and integrity of the Judicial Officer/Presiding Officer of the Court. In the present case, an open attack by misbehaviour and abuse has been shown against concerned Judicial Officer. 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.

34. The Judicial Officer/Judges had no platform to stand and clarify the circumstances in which the order has been passed by them. They have 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 be allowed to be made by a party, who did not find an 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 loosing party cannot be allowed to challenge the very conduct/integrity of Judicial Officer in passing the order and that too without any material to support such an 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 other but the resultant situation may came a serious 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 legal and reasonable means.

35. In the above background and considering the facts that the charge is proved against the contemnors, now, we have to consider about the sentence on which counsel for contemnors as well as the contemnors have stated in the Court that they are throwing themselves to the mercy of the court and showing magnanimity, benevolence and a lenient view.

36. In these circumstances, we impose punishment of simple imprisonment of 15 days upon contemnor no.1 and a fine of Rs.2000/-. In case of non payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imrprisonment for a further period of 15 days. So far as contemnor nos. 2 and 3 are concerned though the charge is found proved against them, but it is less serious then contemnor no.1. We, therefore, impose punishment of simple imprisonment of one day and fine of Rs.2000/- each to contemnor nos. 2 and 3. In case of non payment of fine they shall, however, undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one week.

37. Besides above, in order to maintain discipline and avoid nuisance in the District Judgeship, we also direct that contemnor no.1 shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship, Firozabad for a period of three months. The contemnors no. 2 and 3 shall not enter premises of District Judge ship, Firozabad for a period of one month. The aforesaid period of restriction shall commence with effect from 1st June 2015.

38. Besides, the conduct of all three contemnors shall remain under constant watch of District Judge, Firozabad for a period of two years. If any of them shows any otherwise objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of Court etc. the District Judge shall immediately report the matter to the Court suo motu.

39. However, we suspend our order of punishment of sentence of simple imprisonment made against the three contemnors, for a period of two months to enable them to file appeal under Section 19, if they are so advised. In case no appeal is filed, and, if filed, and no otherwise order is passed by the appellate court, the contemnors shall surrender themselves after expiry of the period of two months i.e. on 27.7.2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who shall take appropriate steps for getting served by the contemnor.

40. So far as amount of fine is concerned, contemnors may deposit the same either in this Court or with the District Judge, Firozabad or with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad by 31.07.2015.

42. The contempt application is disposed of. A copy of this order shall forthwith be communicated to the District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad for information and compliance.

Order Date :- 25.5.2015/vkg

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 10 of 2013

Applicant :- In Re

Opposite Party :- Sri Ujendra Vir Singh Advocate & Others

Counsel for Applicant :- A.G.A.,Sudhir Mehrotra

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Tiwari,Anurag Pathak,D.K.Kulshrstha,Deepak Kr.,K.S.Chahar,Rakesh Pathak,S. Pandey,S.D. Pandey,S.P.Pandey,Yogendra Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Gupta,J.

1. After delivery of the judgment the contemnor nos. 2 and 3 stated at the bar that they want to comply the judgment and are surrendering themselves so that they may be taken into custody to serve out the sentence. They also prayed that they may be allowed to deposit fine before the Registrar General.

2. We accordingly, direct to take them into custody to serve out the sentence till rising of the Court and they shall be released after rising of the Court. They may also deposit fine with the Registrar General within two days.

3. The contemnor no.1 however states that the sentence in his case may be deferred to enable him to avail further remedy.

4. We, therefore, suspend our order of punishment of sentence of simple imprisonment made against contemnor no.1 for a period of two months to enable him to file appeal under Section 19 of Act 1971, if so advised. In case no appeal is filed, and, if filed, and no otherwise order is passed by appellate court, the contemnor no.1 shall surrender himself after expiry of the period of two months i.e. on 27.7.2015 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who shall take appropriate steps for getting the sentence served out by contemnor.

5. So far as amount of fine is concerned, contemnor no.1 may deposit the same either in this Court or with the District Judge, Firozabad or with the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad by 31.07.2015.

Order Date :- 25.5.2015/vkg