The conduct of an advocate in scandalizing the court, lowering the authority of the court, and interfering in the administration of justice amounts to criminal contempt.

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

1. This criminal contempt proceeding under Section 15 (2) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 has been initiated on a Reference dated 30.10.2013 made by Mamta Singh, Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 18, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'Referring Court') complaining about certain acts of Mohammad Shoeb Siddiqui, Advocate (hereinafter referred to as 'Contemnor'), practising in District Judgeship Gorakhpur. It is stated that on 23.10.2013 when examination of witnesses in Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 Chhedi Vs. Jawahar' was going on between 12.30-1.00 p.m. Contemnor appeared in Court in presence of several advocates and litigants and said in loud voice in respect to an order dated 23.10.2013 passed in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 (Danish Aqeel Vs. Tarannum), which was against client of Contemnor that how could she pass such order. When Referring Court attempted to stop Contemnor stating that examination of witnesses is going on in another matter, please keep silence, Contemnor used indecent language and said that order has been passed by taking bribe and he will get her suspended and thrown out of job. She does not know Contemnor. Referring Court and advocates tried to pacify Contemnor but he continued shouting making allegations of bribe etc. upon Referring Court which not only disturbed Court proceedings but has lowered down authority of the Court.

2. Aforesaid Reference was forwarded by District Judge, Gorakhpur on 30.10.2013. Referring Court also appended photocopy of the order sheet dated 23.10.2013 in which she noticed above conduct shown by Contemnor, which reads as under:

"File has been placed. Argument was being recorded. During course of argument, counsel Shoeb Akhtar, Advocate, appeared in Court and started shouting loudly regarding an order dated 22.10.2013 passed in Original Suit No. 72/2013 Danish Shakeel Versus Tarannum and alleged me with a charge of taking bribe. Therefore, due to his uncourteous conduct, the court work has interrupted. Threats of getting me suspended and terminated from service have been given by him. The court work has obstructed.

Therefore, for remaining argument, let case be placed on 27-1-13."

[English Translation by Court]

3. Reference was considered on Administrative Side and three Judges' Committee of this Court, finding a prima-facie case of criminal contempt recommended further action which was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 03.03.2014 whereafter the matter was placed before a Division Bench who passed order dated 12.03.2014 issuing notice to Contemnor to show cause, why proceedings for criminal contempt may not be initiated against him. Court observed that prima facie, totality of circumstances reflects that due to act of Contemnor, stated in Reference, dignity of Court has been lowered down and deliberate and wilful attempt has been made to interfere with administration of justice.

4. Contemnor put in appearance and besides personally present was also represented by Sri A.N. Bhargava, Advocate. He filed a counter affidavit sworn on 15.05.2014 stating that on 22.10.2013 Presiding Officer rejected application No. 6-C in Misc. Case No. 72 of 2013 Danish Aqeel Vs. Smt. Tarannum and others' which had arisen from ex-parte decree passed in Original Suit No. 655 of 2008, Contemnor reminded Presiding Officer with submissive language at the moment of rejection that Court's order is not legally sustainable and he would challenge it before superior Court. Contemnor advised his client to prefer a revision before District Judge, Gorakhpur against order dated 22.10.2013. Contemnor never appeared in Referring Court on 23.10.2013 as alleged in her letter dated 30.10.2013. Contemnor had also neither used any contemptuous language of threatening nor interrupted functioning of Court, as alleged. Allegations are false, concocted, mala fide and afterthought. They appear to have been inserted in order sheet dated 23.10.2013 of Original Suit No. 652 of 2007 Chhed