Back
2010 Supreme(All) 492
2010(69) ACC 23
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon. Imtiyaz Murtaza J. Hon. S.S.Tiwari, J.
R.P. SAROJ CIVIL JUDGE (S.D.)/A.C.J.M. Chandausi Moradabad Appellant
Versus
Harish Babu Gupta Advocate Contemnor.
Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 28 of 2006
Decided On: Feb 5, 2010
The judgment establishes the principle that an advocate's conduct, including interrupting court proceedings and making disrespectful remarks, can amount to contempt of court. It also emphasizes the importance of a genuine and voluntary apology in contempt proceedings.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Advocate's Misconduct - Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Section 2 (c)
Fact of the Case:
The contempt proceeding arose from an incident where the contemnor, an advocate, interrupted a court proceeding, made disrespectful remarks, and scandalized the authority of the court. The contemnor denied the allegations and filed multiple affidavits and documents to justify his actions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the contemnor guilty of criminal contempt, emphasizing that the apology should be voluntary, unconditional, and indicative of remorse. The court rejected the contemnor's apology, considering it insincere and a shield to protect himself.
Issues: The main issue was whether the contemnor's conduct amounted to contempt of court, and whether the apology offered was genuine and acceptable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contemnor's conduct, including interrupting court proceedings and making disrespectful remarks, amounted to contempt of court. The court emphasized the duty of lawyers to cooperate with the court and maintain decorum, and the importance of preserving the dignity and authority of the judiciary.
Final Decision: The contemnor was convicted under section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, sentenced to one month of simple imprisonment, and fined Rs 20,000. The punishment was kept in abeyance for sixty days to enable the contemnor to approach the Apex Court.
1. The genesis of present contempt proceeding is the report made by Sri R.P.Saroj, the then Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge (S.D.) posted at Chandausi, an outlying court of Moradabad Judgeship vide letter dated 4.9.2006 with accompanying letter of District Judge dated 7.9.2006 containing reference for initiation of contempt proceeding under section 2 (c ) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 against Harish Babu Gupta Advocate arrayed as contemnor herein.
Upon receipt of reference, it would appear, the matter was processed by the office and initially the matter was referred to Administrative Judge Moradabad who opined that contempt proceedings be instituted in the matter vide comments of Administrative Judge, dated 3.10.2006 which are excerpted below.
"May his Lordship like to initiate contempt proceedings in view of conduct of the Advocate at (A).."
The matter thereafter went ahead to the end of Hon. Chief Justice who appended his approval vide order dated 19.10.2006 and thereafter, the matter came to be referred to on judicial side and the same was admitted by the Division Bench and notice was issued. The charge was framed by the Bench on 16.1.2007 and served to the contemnor.
A brief resume of events leading to submission of report containing Reference made to this Court for initiation of contempt against the contemnor is that on 4.9.2006 while the officer was busy hearing Criminal case No. 436 of 2005 State v. Kushal Pal Singh and in the midst of hearing, when his attention was adverted to the fact that one of the witnesses of the prosecution had come, he ordered the case to be taken up at 12.40 pm. At the given time, when the court was busy recording statement of the witness, the contemnor entered the court room and interrupted the proceeding of the court stating that his case namely, suit no. 3/2006 Smt. Usha Rani v. Jitender be taken up. When the Presiding officer asked him to wait for completion of statement which was in the process of being recorded, the contemnor got annoyed and made certain remarks which tended to scandalize the authority of the court and undermined its dignity. The words uttered by the contemnor are excerpted below.
"Apko meri patravali main pahle sunwai karni hogi. Tumeh jaisa Mein Kahtah hun vaisa Karna Padega. Pata nahi kaise High Court Adhikari Ki Niykuti Kar Deta Hai. Mere Naam Se Adhikari Darte Hai. Mera koi kutch nahi bigad sakta hai. Main bahut Shikayati hoon. Mool Vad Sankhya 67/04 Ish Kumar Malhotra vs. uttar Pradesh Raj Vidyut Board Me Tumeh mere Paksh mein Aadesh karna Padega. Aap Anusuchit Jaat Ke Hai. Aap apni Aukat Main Rahe. Pata Nahi Kaise Aap Ki Niyukti Ho Gaye Hai."
Sri Kshitij Shailendra, appearing for the contemnor did not argue on merits of the case and instead, invoked the compassion of the Court for accepting the unqualified apology which the contemnor has already tendered and prayed for discharging the contemnor. He prayed for lenient view stating that the contemnor was fairly senior having already put in 35 years of practice attended with further submission that at no point of time, his conduct had departed from the path of rectitude and sobriety or of a conduct expected of a lawyer of this stature again followed by the submission that the contemnor was an old and infirm person afflicted with many diseases concomitant with old age particularly pointing to the fact that he was a chronic patient of asthma which would be borne out from the certificate attached with the affidavit filed by the deponent. It is also submitted that the events which really happened in the court have been narrated in the affidavit sworn on 16.1.2006 by the contemnor and still, if the court was of the view that the the contemnor was guilty of contempt, it may be taken into consideration that the contemnor was not addicted to using contemptuous language and making scurrilous attacks as it was his first aberration and therefore, he should be purged and should be given a chan
