The judgment established the importance of upholding the dignity and authority of the court, the duty of advocates to cooperate with the court, and the criteria for accepting an apology in contempt cases.

Imtiyaz Murtaza, J.:-

The con­tempt proceeding in the instant case has its genesis in the Reference made by Sri Om Prakash Dixit, Special Judge, Etawah vide letter dated 19.1.2007 which was duly for­warded by District Judge vide letter dated 20.1.2007 whereby reference has been made to this Court for initiation of contempt pro­ceeding against the contemnor namely Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan Advocate Civil Court Etawah.

2. According to the facts contained in ref­erence made to this Court, on 12.1.2007 at 10.35 a.m when the Court was busy record­ing the statement in a final enquiry No. 6 F/2006 State v. Rakesh Kumar Saxena, the con­temnor advocate interrupted the proceeding and insisted with the officer to send for the file and his case be got called out forthwith. When the officer asked him to wait for the proceeding to end, upon which he became furious and in terrorem, remarked which if translated into English would read that per­haps the officer was not aware as to what would happen if the request of the contemnor was not immediately attended to. It is further mentioned in the reference that again the contemnor came to the court at 11.20 a.m and perused the order sheet of Special Case No. 693 of 2004 and burst out angrily using words couched in derogatory and undignified language which if translated in English would agreeably read that the contemnor had set right even the most intractable Judges and the officer stands no where qua them. It is fur­ther mentioned that the contemnor again came to the court at 12.30 p.m and moved an ap­plication whereupon the court passed the or­der thereon. When the contemnor read the contents of the order, he again became furi­ous and remarked which if translated in En­glish would agreeably read that he would make such a strong complaint that the officer would remember for all time to come. In the reference, previous incidents of unruly con­duct of the contemnor in the court of the then Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) Etawah presided over by Sri Rajiv Kumar, contained in letter dated 14.11.2003, in the court of the then Civil Judge (S.D.) presided over by Sri Pradeep Kumar Gupta contained in letter dated 5.4.2005, in the court of then the Addl. District Judge pre­sided over by Sri S.P.Singh and also the no­tice issued to him on 18.8.2006 under section 228 I.P.C., in the court of Special Judge (B.C. Act) presided over by Sri O.P. Dixit vide letter dated 12.1.2007, in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) presided over by Sri Mohd. Rafi vide letter dated 16.2.2007, Vigilance Bureau enquiry No. 28 of 2002 in which no­tice was issued by the High Court dated 22.3.2003 and 22.5.2003 and the letter dated 20.1.2008 written by contemnor to the High Court in which he has prayed for not initiating any action on the complaints against him.

3. On 30.4.2007, upon a note of the office the Administrative Judge Etawah passed the following orders.

"I have seen the report/complaint of the Special Judge (E.G. Act) Etawah, note of the office and other documents on record. It ap­pears that the special Judge (E.G. Act), Etawah was recording the statement of a witness in a case when Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Ad­vocate entered the court room and interfered with the judicial proceedings. I have carefully gone through the record and, in my opinion, the alleged actions of Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advocate, can be defined as 'Con­tempt of Court' within the meaning of sec­tion 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Prima facie there is sufficient material to proceed against him under the said Act.

Let appropriate proceedings be initiated against Sri Shiv Raj Singh Chauhan, Advo­cate for his alleged acts under the Contempt of Courts Act."

4. Thereafter, the matter came to be put up before Hon. Chief Justice and on 25.5.2009 the Chief Justice approved the opinion of the Administrative Judge.

5. Sri S.S. Upadhaya, learned counsel ap­peared for the contemnor and pleaded for merciful view in the matter. On being called upon to argue the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document