2011 Supreme(SC) 569

2011 (4) Supreme 321
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Vishram Singh Raghubanshi — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 2006
Decided on : 15-6-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Apology – ingredients and acceptability.

Headnote:(a) Bar Council of India Rules – Section 1 of Chapter 2 (Part-VI) – An advocate has to act and behave as prescribed – He cannot become a law unto himself even if aggrieved by some judicial officer – There are procedures to vent discontent or redress the grievances which only should be adopted. (Para 7)

        (b) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Seriousness of the irresponsible acts of the contemnor and degree of harm caused to the administration of justice determine whether the matter should be tried as a criminal contempt or not – Court has to examine whether the wrong is done to the judge personally or it is done to the public. (Paras 11 and 12)

        AIR 1970 SC 1767; AIR 1954 SC 10; AIR 1971 SC 221 – Relied upon

        (c) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 15 – Contempt of court includes insult to Judges; attacks upon them; comment on pending proceedings with a tendency to prejudice fair trial; obstruction to officers of Courts, witnesses or the parties; scandalising the Judges or the courts; conduct of a person which tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard – Protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not available in such cases – Growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by unscrupulous practising advocates is unacceptable. (Paras 14 to 16)

        AIR 1991 SC 2176; AIR 1970 SC 2015; (2011) 5 SCALE 518; (1991) 3 SCC 600 – Relied upon

        (d) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) – Apology should be unquestionable in sincerity – Should be tempered with a sense of genuine remorse and repentance, and not a calculated strategy to avoid punishment – It is one thing to ‘say’ sorry-it is another to ‘feel’ sorry – However, an apology should not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or tempered at a belated stage if the accused makes it bona fide. (Paras 18 ad 19)

        (1998) 8 SCC 660; AIR 1984 SC 1374; AIR 2006 SC 2007 – Relied upon

        (e) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) – Apology should be tendered at the earliest – Even if the apology is not belated it may not be accepted if it is without real contrition and remorse, and merely tendered as a weapon of defence. (Para 23)

        AIR 1972 SC 1197; AIR 1996 SC 1925; AIR 2009 SC 2214; (2010) 11 SCC 493; AIR 1969 SC 189 – Relied upon

        (f) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) – If words are calculated and clearly intended to cause any insult, an apology if tendered and lack penitence, regret or contrition, does not deserve to be accepted. (Para 25)

        AIR 1974 SC 710; AIR 1976 SC 242; AIR 1983 SC 1151; AIR 1992 SC 642; (1995) 3 SCC 619; AIR 2008 SC 3016 – Relied upon

        (g) Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12(1) – Appellant instead of yielding to the court honestly and unconditionally, advancing a well guarded defence – The apology giving an impression that the same was in the alternative and not a complete surrender before the law – Being not bona fide, not acceptable. (Para 29)

       Facts of the case:

        1. Appellant is an advocate practising for last 30 years in the District Court, Etawah (U.P.). On 25.7.1998, he produced one Om Prakash for the purpose of surrender, impersonating him as Ram Kishan S/o Ashrafi Lal who was wanted in a criminal case in the court of IInd ACJM, Etawah.

        2. There was some controversy regarding the genuineness of the person who came to surrender and therefore, the Presiding Officer of the Court raised certain issues. So, the appellant misbehaved with the said officer in the court and used abusive language.

        3. The Presiding Officer of the court vide letter dated 28.9.1998 made a complaint against the appellant to the U.P. Bar Council and vide letter dated 27.10.1998 made a reference to the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings against him.

        4. The Bar Council of U.P. dismissed the complaint referred by the Presiding Officer.

        5. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court, giving full opportunity to the appellant to defend himself ultimately held him guilty of committing the contempt and sentenced him to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-.

       Finding of the Court:

        The apology tendered by the appellant is not acceptable.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.