Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 577
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ARUN MISHRA, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE – APPELLANT
VERSUS
ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M. – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1223 OF 2015
Decided On : 10-05-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Singh, Adv. Mr. Sushmit Chauhan, Adv. M/S. Vidhi International
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR
IMPORTANT POINTS
Maligning and scandalizing a court is criminal contempt of court.
Although Court cannot suspend licence of an advocate but can debar him from appearing in the court and impose other punishments.
Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(c) and 12 - Advocate maligning and scandalizing the court - Held guilty of criminal contempt of court (CJM) by High Court - Neither apologizing nor showing any remorse Sentencing him to imprisonment and fine - Court cannot suspend licence of an advocate but can debar him from appearing in the court - Conviction for criminal contempt upheld, sentence modified. (Para 16)
AIR 1954 SC 557; AIR 1957 SC 250; (1998) 4 SCC 409; (2001) 8 SCC 650; (2004) 6 SCC 311; (2009) 8 SCC 106 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order under the Contempt of Courts Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. He has also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15.7.2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years; and in case of any objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of the court, the District Judge has been asked to report the matter to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Maligning and scandalizing a court is criminal contempt of court.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J.
1. The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment and order under the Contempt of Courts Act and has been sentenced to simple imprisonment of six months and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in case of non-payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 15 days. He has also been directed not to enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a period of six months w.e.f. 15.7.2015 and the contemnor shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Allahabad, for a period of two years; and in case of any objectionable conduct, causing interference in peaceful and smooth functioning of the court, the District Judge has been asked to report the matter to the High Court.
2. The contemnor has been charged with criminal contempt to the following effect:
“Sri Rakesh Tripathi, Advocate, on 21st December, 2012 during lunch hour without taking permission from C.J.M., Allahabad entered into his chamber along with 2-3 colleagues and at the said point of time he started hurling filthy abuses to the CJM and the matter did not end there, as he also raised his hand to beat the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him of dire consequences. The contemnor also asked the C.J.M. as to why he has not passed an order for lodging F.I.R. when he had asked for the same. This act on the part of the contemnor constitutes criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as this act has not only lowered the authority of the Court but also scandalised the Court and the same has also the tendency of interference with the due course of administration of justice.”
3. The reply was filed by the contemnor to the effect that he had filed an application on behalf of Akhilesh Kumar Shukla on 19.10.2012 under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was heard by C.J.M. of Allahabad on 30.10.2012 and 8.11.2012 was the date fixed for passing the order. The contemnor alleged that before pronouncement of the order on 8.11.2012 he saw one of the accused, Sharad Tandon, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Allahabad, sitting in the chamber of the CJM. He apprehended that his client will not get justice, hence, he moved an application on 8.11.2012 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate not to pass any order since the contemnor was willing to file a transfer application before the District Judge, Allahabad. The CJM assured not to pass any order but actually passed an order on the same day by converting application filed under section 156(3) Cr.PC into a complaint case registered as Case No.13500 of 2012. The CJM took away the application from record.
Thereafter, the contemnor moved an application before the District & Sessions Judge, Allahabad on 9.11.2012 making a complaint against the CJM, Allahabad.
4. Another application was filed by the contemnor on 30.11.2012 under section 156(3) Cr. P.C. by counsel appearing on behalf of Alok Kumar Shukla. He stated to the CJM that he had moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, hence, CJM should not pass any order. The same should be placed before the Sessions Judge, Allahabad for assigning the same to some other court. In January, 2013 the contemnor came to know that the CJM had passed an order on 18.12.2012 treating the application registered as Complaint Case No.1919/2013. Initially, it was registered as Miscellaneous Application No.1747/XII/2012. Non-bailable warrant has been issued in the same. He did not enter into the chamber of the CJM on 21.12.2012, neither abused nor threatened him to beat. The advocates were on strike on the said date. There was no question of entering the chamber of CJM or to use filthy language.
5. The High Court has found the contemnor along with 2-3 junior advocates entered the chamber of the CJM and misbehaved as well as attempted to assault him. No application was filed by him on 8.11.2012 before the CJM not to pass any ord
