Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:- This is an appeal under Section 19 (1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, ("the Act"), against the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh dated November 17, 1980, in Contempt Case (Criminal) No. 7 of 1980 : Reported in 1981 Cri LJ 239 (Him Pra), whereby the appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/-.

2. The appellant practises as an Advocate at Solan which is a district place in the State of Himachal Pradesh. It appears that only one Court generally sits at Solan which is that of the senior Sub-Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judge, who presides over that Court, also exercises the powers of a Rent Controller and of the Court of Small Causes. On June 18, 1980, Shri Kuldip Chand Sud, who was the Presiding Officer of the Court, was hearing a petition under the Rent Act in which the petitioner was represented by the appellant. When the case was called out for hearing, the learned Judge noticed that the petitioner had not paid the process fee, as a result of which the summons could not be issued to the respondent. The Judge therefore proceeded to dismiss the petition under Order 9, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. Taking umbrage at the dismissal of the petition, the appellant hurled his shoe at the Judge which hit him on the shoulder The Judge asked his Orderly to take the appellant in custody but the appellant slipped away. The Judge evidently wanted to proceed under Section 228 of the Penal Code for which purpose he issued a warrant of arrest against the appellant. The appellant successfully evaded the warrant and managed to prevent proceedings being taken by the Judge for the contempt of his Court. The Judge then made a reference to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh under Section 15 (2) of the Act. The High Court issued notice to the appellant enclosing therewith a copy of the reference made by the Judge.

3. The appellant did not dispute in the High Court that he hurled a shoe at the Judge. He explained his conduct by saying that he acted under an irresistible impulse generated by the provocative language used by the Judge. The appellants version is like this .

On the previous date of hearing, the Judge had directed the appellant to pay fresh process fee and to supply the address to the respondent to the Rent Act petition. The appellant informed the Judge that he was unable to comply with that order since the respondent had been admitted to a hospital and had since left the hospital. The house in which the respondent lived was locked. The Judge then declared that he proposed to take action under Order 9 R. 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant asked the Judge to record his statement as to why he was unable to pay the process fee and supply the address of the respondent. Instead of recording the appellants statement, the Judge remarked : "You rascal, I will set you right". The appellant protested at the abusive language used by the Judge, but the Judge retorted : "I repeat what I said". The appellant thereafter lost control over himself and under the "extreme heat of moment and passion, his hand fell on his shoe" which he threw towards the dais. Many persons were present in the Court who witnessed the incident has happened. Do you want to dais, the appellant took off his coat and tie and told the Court : "An unfortunate incident has happened. Do you want to take any action against me? I surrender". Upon this Judge remarked : "You scoundrel get out of my Court". The appellant thereafter left the Court room.

The High Court had called for the comments of the Judge on the version of the appellant, from which it was satisfied that the appellant was making a false allegation that the Judge had used abusive language against him. The High Court also held that the appellant had given an untrue version of the very genesis of the incident since the Judge had not given any direction for furnishing the complete address of the responden