Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—A reference was made by Sri Surya Prakash Sharma, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushinagar at Padrauna on 18.9.2008 forwarded by the then District Judge, Kushinagar vide letter dated 23.8.2008 informing this Court regarding activities of Sri Bhagwati Sharma, Advocate, in Civil Court, Kushinagar which constituted “Criminal contempt” as defined under Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act 1971(hereinafter referred to as “Act 1971”). The matter was examined by this Court and it was registered as Criminal Contempt Application No. 20 of 2008. In the Reference it is stated that on 18.8.2008 when Court was busy in criminal case No. 713 of 2007, Smt. Madhubala Pandey v. Abhishek Kumar, the Contemnor, appearing for the applicant in the said case dubbed the Court as ‘incompetent’. During course of argument, the contemnor uttered the words “COURT INCOMPETENT HAI”.

2. Likewise in another Criminal Misc. case No. 136 of 2008, Smt. Sobha Kushwaha v. Santosh Kushwaha, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the contemnor appearing for Smt. Sobha Kushwaha, without arguing the case on merits, stated in high pitch tone in open Court that he repeats the same arguments. The actual words uttered by contemnor were “MERI YAHI BAHAS IS PATRAVALI MAIN BHI HAI”

3. This Court prima facie found the aforesaid act of contemnor constituting “criminal contempt” and, on 7.1.2009 issued notice as to why he be not proceeded against for committing ‘criminal contempt’ under the provisions of Act 1971.

4. Contemnor put in appearance on 17.12.2009. His counsel stated before the Court that framing of charges be dispensed with and contemnor is repentant for committing contempt of Court and apologizes with the assurance not to repeat the same again. The Court accordingly proceeded and did not frame any formal charge against him. He was represented by senior counsel Sri B.B.P. Srivastava who stated before the Court that he is not arguing the matter on merits and pray for mercy and compassion of Court for accepting unconditional and unqualified apology which the contemnor has tendered and is praying for discharge. He states that contemnor is fairly a senior counsel having more than 25 years of practice and had never departed from the path of rectitude and sobriety or of a conduct of his stature.

5. However, subsequently, the Court found from record that in counter-affidavit, he has said that he reiterated language used by police personnel before his client and did not add any word of his own or subtract any word therefrom and these words were actually uttered by him in good faith, therefore, they did not constitute a criminal contempt. He never intended to scandlize the Court by saying “incompetent” and never intended to lower down its authority. Looking to the conduct of contemnor as reflected from his stand taken in counter-affidavit, Court found that here is a case where contemnor has actually lowered down authority of Court by calling it ‘incompetent’ and has committed a ‘criminal contempt’. The Court in its order dated 5.2.2010 further noticed that earlier also a Criminal Contempt Petition No. 16 of 2006 had proceeded against this very Contemnor wherein Court accepted his apology and discharged him from similar allegation. Operative part of order dated 25.9.2006 passed in criminal contempt petition No. 16 of 2006 quoted therein reads as under:

“Since the contemnors have tendered their unconditional apology and they are the pactising advocates in the Civil Court, Kushinagar in the interest of justice and equity both, we find it proper to direct them to put in their appearance before the present District and Sessions Judge, Kushinagar within two weeks and furnish their individual affidavits tendering apology as made before this Court. The Court concerned shall maintain a record in this regard and submit a report thereon on or before Ist Nov 2006.”

6. Having said so and looking to the entire matter, this Court held that contemnor has c