The language used by the respondent towards the Presiding Officer was found to be contemptuous and not in keeping with the dignity and decorum of court proceedings.

Hemant Gupta, J. - The District and Sessions Judge, Hisar vide his communication dated 7.2.2002 has forwarded a reference by Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hisar, regarding conduct of Sh. S.L. Sardana, Advocate in his court on 6.2.2002. The reference reads as under :-

"I have the honour to submit that petition bearing No. 22 of 2000 was taken up by the undersigned today at around 1.45 p.m. The petition was fixed for evidence of the petitioner and cross-examination of the petitioner Prem Parkash was to be recorded. On the last date of hearing, some record was called from the petitioner by the respondents. The learned Counsel for the respondents Sh. S.L. Sardana, Advocate put one question, which was reduced into writing by the Reader Sh. Vijay Kumar on the instructions and dictation of the undersigned, and thereafter the learned Counsel Sh. Sardana asked the Reader in a very high tone to read to him the question put by him. On this the undersigned told the learned Counsel to be in normal tone and not to threaten the Reader. On this, the learned Counsel Sh. S.L. Sardana got angry and started levelling allegations against the undersigned. When the undersigned asked him as to what was the matter, he started shouting in high tone that he be called in Chamber and then he would tell the undersigned about his deeds. He also uttered in high tone that there were several spots on his face and the undersigned should look into the mirror and then would find those spots. These allegations amount to Criminal Contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. At that time Sh. S.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prem Parkash, petitioner in- person, Sh. R.S. Jain, Sh. Naveen Jain counsel for the respondents alongwith Sh. Sardana were also present besides the officials of the Court."

2. This Court took cognizance of the communication as prima facie disclosing Criminal Contempt and issued notice to the respondent-contemner. The respondent-contemner has filed an affidavit dated 26.8.2002 wherein it is deposed that the version given in the complaint is not a correct version. The respondent-contemner has not made any allegations against the learned Civil Judge. It has been stated that in fact learned Civil Judge insulted the respondent-contemner without any cogent reasons. Respondent-contemner has also stated that the learned Presiding Officer was not in the chair when the Reader asked the respondent-contemner to begin the cross-examination of Prem Parkash at about 2.00 p.m. and on expressing desire by the respondent- contemner to wait for the Presiding Officer, the Reader went to the retiring room and Presiding Officer came out to retiring room. It is mentioned that the Presiding Officer asked the respondent is a very angry and threatening tone as to why respondent-contemner was not cooperating with the Reader of the Court in cross-examination of the witnesses. The respondent-contemner submitted explanation that cross-examination of the witnesses could not be recorded in the absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court keeping in view the nature of the case. The respondent-contemner has stated that even though the Presiding Officer was subsequently sitting in the Court room yet cross- examination was being recorded by the Reader. The respondent-contemner in order to ensure whether reply of witness was recorded asked the Reader as to what was written and on repeating the same by respondent-contemner, the Presiding Officer lost temper beyond reasonable limit and began to hurl abuses to the respondent-contemner. This burst of intemperate language had the effect of ridiculing the respondent-contemner in open Court in the presence of a number of litigants and lawyers. However, the respondent-contemner has admitted in his affidavit that he asked the learned Presiding Officer to look at himself in a mirror before levelling allegations against other. Para 1(iii) of the affidavit reads