ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, Dinesh Gupta, JJ.
Amit Kumar Prajapati Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra. - Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Prasad Shukla Advocate & Others - Respondent
Contempt Application (Criminal) No. 12 of 2013
Decided On : 02-07-2015
CRIMINAL CONTEMPT - ACT, SECTION REFERRED - SUMMARY - [CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971] - [SECTION 2(C), 10, 14, 15] - [CRIMINAL CONTEMPT] - Advocates obstructed court proceedings by raising slogans, abusing the court, and preventing litigants and advocates from pursuing their matters before the court. The court held that the advocates' actions amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentenced them to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-.
Fact of the Case:
On 12.4.2013, advocates in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, obstructed court proceedings by raising slogans, abusing the court, and preventing litigants and advocates from pursuing their matters before the court. The court took suo motu cognizance of the incident and issued notices to the contemnors.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the advocates' actions amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The court found that the advocates had intentionally obstructed the administration of justice and lowered the authority of the court.
Issues: Whether the advocates' actions amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the advocates' actions amounted to criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, because they had intentionally obstructed the administration of justice and lowered the authority of the court.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the advocates to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/-. The court also directed that the advocates shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Sonbhadra for a period of six months and that their conduct shall remain under constant watch of the District Judge, Sonbhadra for a period of two years.
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
1. Reference vide letter dated 15.4.2013 was made by Shri Amit Kumar Prajapati, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra (hereinafter referred to as 'ACJM') stating that on 12.4.2013 after lunch hours when he was discharging judicial function in Court, hearing miscellaneous and bail applications, Advocates Govind Narayan, Umakant Singh, Ravindra Singh, Titu Prasad Gupta, Roshan Lal Yadav, Ashwani Kumar Singh, Bhola Singh, Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, Vikash Shakya, Pravej Akhtar, Jagjeevan Singh etc. were present for hearing of their applications and bail applications, Manoj Kumar Pandey, Secretary, Bar Association, Sonbhadra appeared in Court and enquired from aforesaid advocates, who were present in Court as to why they are working in Court. In the mean time, about 15-20 more advocates alongwith Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om Prakash Rai and Om Prakash Pathak, Advocates entered the court room and said that advocates are abstaining from judicial work, then how the court is functioning. The Presiding Officer tried to convince them that court is not abstaining from judicial work and those advocates who are willing, shall be allowed to work, whereupon the aforesaid advocates, namely, Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om Prakash Rai and Om Prakash Pathak got annoyed and started shouting, "Nyayalay Chor aur Beiman hai" and despite the advocates are abstaining from judicial work, court is functioning. They also started using abusive language, which is not to be disclosed. In the court room itself the aforesaid advocates raised slogans "nayayalay murdabad, adhivakta ekta zindabad", on account whereof, the court functioning had to be deferred for some time. In that way Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om Prakash Rai and Om Prakash Pathak and 15- 20 other advocates obstructed functioning of the court.
2. It is further stated that on 21st May, 2013 also, about 40-50 advocates entered the court room of Chief Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as 'CJM') and prevented those advocates, who were working and asked not to work whereupon CJM, Sonbhadra said that those advocate who are willing to work, cannot be stopped from functioning and it is duty of court to attend cases of litigants and advocates, who are present in court and willing to work whereupon the disturbing advocates started raising slogans "nayayalay murdabad adhivakta ekta zindabad" and creating obstruction in judicial work. Mahandra Prasad Shukla was General Secretary of Bar Association at that time and he was also present in court room of CJM, creating obstruction in judicial work.
3. Reference letter further states that Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Advocate treats himself an authority onto himself and in the habit of misrepresentation and disturbing court function. He used to attempt to create undue pressure upon judicial officers by showing contemptuous conduct, time and again. In Case No.208/97 State Vs. Santosh and others, pending in court of CJM, in which Mahendra Prasad Shukla himself was an advocate, he produced forged surety and other documents in favour of accused Santosh Singh. In this connection complainant Jaswant Singh submitted an affidavit on 2.2.2013 in the court of CJM and when his brother enquired about fictitious surety from Mahendra Prasad Shukla, advocate, then Mr. Shukla threatened him to destroy. Taking cognizance of the offence, CJM, on 16.2.2013, ordered to register FIR against Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Advocate.
4. Reference letter further says that conduct of Mahendra Prasad Shukla, Om Prakash Rai and Om Prakash Pathak, advocates and other 15-20 advocates, shown in his court, not only has the effect of scandalizing the court but also lower down its authority since the aforesaid act was committed openly, in presence of litigating public in court room, and same amounts to a criminal contempt.
5. Under the order of Hon'ble The Chief Justice, dated 26.3.2015, the reference letter was placed before Bench having determination of criminal contempt
Ex-Captain Harish Uppal vs. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45 (Para 38)
Indian Council of Legal Aid and Advice vs. Bar Council of India (1995) 1 SCC 732 (Para 38)
K. John Koshy vs. Dr. Tarkeshwar Prasad Shaw (1998) 8 SCC 624 (Para 38)
Mahavir Prasad Singh vs. Jacks Aviation Private Ltd. (1999) 1 SCC 37 (Para 38)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.