The main legal point established is that an apology is not a defense to absolve the contemnor from guilt, and the conduct of the contemnor must demonstrate real contriteness to avoid contempt of court.

JUDGMENT

Lapita Banerji, J. - By an order dated September 29, 2022 this Court directed a suo moto Rule of contempt to be issued against the respondent no. 4, Kanishk Sinha, appearing in person.

2. The reasons for issuing the suo moto Rule of contempt are briefly as follows. When the court was in seisin of the appeal being FMA 623 of 2022 along with its connected applications, the respondent No.4 filed an application being CAN 3 of 2022 against Mr. Sayantan Basu, the learned counsel representing the appellants.

3. At Paragraph 3 of CAN 3 of 2022, the respondent no. 4/ the contemnor alleged that the learned advocate representing the appellants was asking the parties to give him briefs and money as he was the junior to one of the members of this Bench in seisin of the matter and would be able to obtain favorable orders.

4. Therefore, the contemnor prayed for releasing of the appeal on assignment, being FMA 623 of 2022 from the Bench in seisin.

5. Furthermore, the contemnor also wrote a letter vide electronic mail to the Commissioner of Police, Kolkata alleging that Mr. Sayantan Basu spoke to another fellow advocate regarding hurting and/or killing the contemnor and/or his family members by hiring criminals.

6. When the aforesaid CAN 3 of 2022 was placed before this Court on August 3, 2022 along with the electronic mail which was brought on record before this Court by way of filing of an affidavit this Court directed:-

Accordingly, the Bar Council of West Bengal represented through its Chairman is directed to investigate the complaint being CAN 3 of 2022 along with the respective affidavits filed by the parties and file a Report before this Court on the next date.

The Learned Government Pleader is directed also to take notice of the Gmail addressed to the Commissioner of Police and brought on record as part of an additional affidavit affirmed on behalf of the Appellants dated 13th of July, 2022 and also file a Report on the next date.

Both the Appellants and the Private Respondent No. 4 shall hand over copies of their respective affidavits to the Bar Council of West Bengal and to the Government Pleader both in electronic form and in person, positively in the course of this week.

Let proof of service, as directed above, be produced on the next date.

Let the matter appear under the same heading 'Application (Assigned) (Heard-in-Part)' on the 7th of September, 2022.

7. The matter came up for consideration next on September 29, 2022, when the Report of the Bar Council of West Bengal as well as the Report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Kolkata were filed in Court and retained with the records. The relevant portion of the Order dated September 29, 2022 is reproduced herein below:

The Report of the Bar Council of West Bengal, concludes as follows:

'On a perusal of the aforesaid rules it is amply clear that this rules are mainly restraining the concerned advocate from showing any disrespect towards the Court, towards the opposite party and the opposite Counsel. But nowhere this rules restrained any advocate from making any communication towards his client which amounts to a privilege communication. He has also referred the name of Mr. Supriyo Mukherjee who is not his client. Moreover, in this particular matter the complainant Shri Gunjan Sinha is the party in person and no compliant has been made that Ld. Advocates appearing on the other side has done anything in violation of the aforesaid rules.

The complaint made in paragraph 3 also in respect of giving money to the junior advocate against whom the allegation was that he was the junior of Justice Talukdar when he was the member of the profession. The said allegation could not be substantiated.

In view of the aforesaid it is the finding of the Committee that the complainant made in paragraph 3 of CAN No. 3 of 2022 in FMAT 623/2022 has not substance and it is beyond the scope of said FMAT 623/2022.'

The Report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Division, Kolkata conclu